Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL,

" to confer further police powers on the Corporation of the City of Glasgow and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

CHANNEL ISLANDS (TRAVEL)

11.5 a.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): With the leave of the House, I wish to make a statement.
As from 31st March, British subjects resident in Great Britain will no longer require an exit permit or travel identity document for travel to and from the Channel Islands. It is expected that the number of holiday makers in the Islands will be limited by transport facilities rather than hotel and boarding house accommodation, and before they make final plans holiday makers should make certain from the transport companies that travel facilities will be available. Travel to Alderney will still be restricted, and persons wishing to travel there should apply, as at present, to the Home Office or the Lieutenant-Governor of Guernsey.

Orders of the Day — CAMBERWELL, BRISTOL AND NOTTINGHAM ELECTIONS (VALIDATION) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (QUESTIONS)

11.7 a.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr, Herbert Morrison): I beg to move,
That for the remainder of the present Session the following paragraph shall have effect in substitution for paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 7:
(4) Any Member who desires an oral answer to his question may distinguish it by an asterisk, but notice of any such question must appear at latest on the Notice Paper circulated two days (excluding Sundays) before that on which an answer is desired. Provided that questions received at the Table Office on Mondays and Tuesdays before 2.15 p.m. and on Fridays before 11 a.m., if so desired by the Member, may be put down for oral answer on the following Wednesday, Thursday and Monday, respectively.
The object of this Motion is to establish a Sessional Order revising the time of notice which has to be given in relation to Questions for oral answer. The object of the Sessional Order which is before the House, is to give effect to the recommendation in the Second Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, that the period of notice for Questions for oral answer handed in during the sitting of the House, should be increased from one to two days, not counting Sundays, Questions received at the Table Office before the hour of sitting, being deemed to have been received the day before.
To the uninstructed observer it might appear that this is a matter of no great consequence, but that is not my view nor, I am sure, the view of the House of Commons. Anything which touches Questions, however important or unimportant their relationship may be, anything which touches this British Parliamentary institution of questioning Ministers day by day, is bound to be a matter of vital importance to the House of Commons. Parliamentary Questions have had a comparatively short history relative to the life of Parliament. In just over 100 years, they have developed into one of the most valuable and characteristic of our Parliamentary institutions. As the Select Committee point out, the right to put Questions to Ministers is one of the most important possessed by Members, and it has become a very effective method of exercising the historic functions of Parliament in relation to the Executive. Indeed, Question time exemplifies that close day-to-day relationship between Ministers and legislature,


which is one of the main sources of strength of our constitution. If any Minister is ever in danger of forgetting that Parliament is his master—and though it has never been allowed to happen to me, I can conceive of circumstances in which it might happen—Question time is a sharp and healthy reminder to him of his responsibility to Parliament.
A new Minister soon learns that everything he is doing from day to day, important or unimportant, may be challenged any day, by way of Question in this House. That is a very good thing. I sometimes wish that all our Allies in the world, great and small, had a Parliamentary Question day, on which Ministers could be questioned about matters of foreign policy and what not, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is questioned here, and rightly. If only his opposite numbers in other nations of the world could be questioned, it would do much to clear up misunderstandings of one sort and another But constitutional practice varies from nation to nation—and I would not like it to be thought that I have only one country in mind. The American Congress itself does not have Questions to Ministers, democratic though the Constitution of the United States undoubtedly is.
It is right, therefore, that this institution of Parliamentary Questions should be regarded with importance. I hope it always will be. I share the view of the Select Committee in deprecating anything which would tend to diminish the effectiveness of the right of Members to question Ministers. But this does not mean that the existing procedure is a law of the Medes and Persians, which must never be changed. As in the past, the sheer number of Questions may, in itself, necessitate changes, and it gives cause for thought that we have, as I am told, already passed the 10,000 mark for Oral Questions this Parliamentary Session. No doubt, by this time, my colleagues on the Treasury Bench are trying to count up, for how many thousands of those 10,000 Questions they have been personally responsible. Nevertheless, restrictions on existing rights should not be lightly introduced.
There is, however, one change of machinery which the Select Committee thought could, with advantage, be made without diminishing, and indeed on

balance increasing the effectiveness of oral Parliamentary Questions. The present Rule as regards the period of notice for oral questions is contained in Paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 7, which was framed in 1902. This provides that notice of Questions for oral answer must appear at the latest on the Notice Paper circulated on the day before that on which the answer is desired. The effect of this is that Ministers and Departments have only one clear day to prepare the answers to a considerable proportion of their Questions. Some of these raise high questions of policy, calling for considered examination. Others may require consultation with a number of Departments. It is often necessary to make inquiries outside the headquarters of the Department, of outstations, of overseas posts, of Service units in all parts of the world, of local authorities, of the police, and so on. In each of these cases, the replies can only be prepared at such short notice, at the price of a greater or lesser dislocation of other Ministerial and Departmental business, and with the risk that the inquiries may not be as thorough as they would be if the notice was longer. These difficulties are particularly serious in the case of Questions appearing on the Order Paper on Saturday, for answer on Monday
A number of examples of Questions 0f these kinds were given in the Memorandum which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury submitted to the Select Committee, and which is published with their proceedings. I will not go through all these examples, but it may help the House if I quote two of them, to illustrate what I have in mind. As an example of a Question involving extensive inter-Departmental consultations, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary mentioned one addressed to the Prime Minister, which appeared on the Paper on a Tuesday for answer on the Wednesday, about the number of wives of Service personnel and of Crown servants respectively who had been provided with passages to join their husbands. It was necessary to consult the Treasury, the Admiralty, the War Office, the Air Ministry, the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the India Office, and the Ministry of War Transport. One can imagine that No. 10, Downing Street, had a rather busy and anxious 24-hour period, with everybody most anxiously striving to see


that the Question was properly answered on the following day. I can assure the House that the greatest care is taken about Parliamentary answers. In any case, if the greatest care is not taken, the Minister runs great risks. Great care is taken, and the Departments have a healthy respect for this Parliamentary institution, and it is good that that should be so. As an example of a Question requiring inquiries abroad, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary instanced one which involved inquiries into the alleged lack of mosquito nets for certain airmen in Singapore.
In neither of these cases could it be said, on the face of things, that the urgency was such that a delay of a day or two would have mattered, and I think that this can be said of the great bulk of the Questions concerned. I merely state this as a fact. I make no complaint whatever. Under the existing Standing Order it is not only legitimate but perfectly natural that Members should put Questions down for answer with only the clear day's notice required by the Order. It was because they felt that many Questions which are put down at the minimum period of notice do not appear to merit such urgent treatment, and that the present period demands great efforts by a disproportionate staff in Departments, without producing the best results either from the Members' or the Departments' point of view, that, representing the Government, my hon. Friends the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Under Secretary of State for Air asked the Select Committee to consider an increase in the period of notice. They suggested an increase from one day to two.
The Select Committee accepted these arguments in favour of increasing the period of notice, and recommended that the present Rule should be amended so as normally to give the Departments a full two days' notice. They did not, however, feel able to accept the precise suggestion made by the Government's representatives, because, as they point out in their Report, the effect of putting off a Question from the earliest day is usually to defer the answer for a whole week. The Committee's alternative proposal is that Questions received at the Table Office before the hour of Sitting of the House should be deemed to have been received the day before, and that arrangements

should be made for copies of such Questions to be sent by hand to the appropriate Department as soon as they have been examined by the Clerk in charge of Questions. In this way, as they remark, Departments would have the advantage of several valuable working hours to initiate such inquiries as may be necessary and the right of Members to a quick answer to a really urgent Question would be preserved.
The Government recognise the force of the Select Committee's argument, and though it will, of course, provide somewhat less relief to Departments than a period of notice of two full days, they are very willing to concur in the alternative arrangements proposed. As the Committee recognise, its success will depend largely on the co-operation of the House. As is clear from the Committee's Report, the object of the special procedure which they recommend is to enable Members to get quick answers to really urgent Questions. I am sure that the House will operate the expedited procedure in the spirit in which it is intended to be worked, and that Members will not put down what I may call last-minute Questions unless they feel that an early answer is really urgently called for in the public interest. I would add that I hope that—not only from the point of view of the Departments but also that of the Clerks of the House who deal with Questions, and to whose willing shoulders the new arrangement will add extra burdens—Members will do their best to hand in their Questions as long as possible before the Hour of Sitting of the House. It would immensely increase the difficulties of everybody concerned if the Clerks were snowed under by Questions handed in at the last minute, and many of the advantages of the change would be lost. Therefore, the cordial co-operation of hon. Members in that respect will be most highly valued.
It will be noticed that we have made some slight drafting changes in the amendment to Standing Orders suggested by the Select Committee. These do not affect the substance, but we think that perhaps they make the position a little clearer. There is one other minor point on which the Government have departed from the strict letter of the Select Committee's recommendation. Though the Committee do not say so in terms, they appear to contemplate that the amendment should be in the form of a new


Standing Order. I am not sure whether they gave direct consideration to the point, but the Government think that perhaps it would be more convenient if we made it a Sessional Order in the first instance, and so get experience before it is made an actual Standing Order, although we think it will work satisfactorily.
The Select Committee also recommended that Questions not for oral answer should be answered within seven days after their appearance on the Order Paper. This is not a matter for a Standing or Sessional Order, but the House will wish to know that the Government agree that this is a reasonable proposal, and instructions in this sense have been sent to the various Departments of State. Like the Select Committee, the Government recognise that if Members can be assured of a speedy answer to Questions for written answer, they will be likely to make more use of them, and the pressure on Question time will accordingly be relieved. This is one way in which Members can contribute to the greater usefulness of Question time, and, like the Select Committee, may I commend the idea to the House?
Lastly, I would express appreciation of the spirit of helpfulness and good sense with which the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Sir R. Young), have dealt with this matter. We are grateful for their understanding and cooperation. Given the cooperation of the House, the proposal which they have made should not only be of considerable benefit to the Government, but should increase, if only in a small measure, the effectiveness of one of the most valuable rights of the Private Member. For both these reasons, I commend the Sessional Order to the favourable consideration of the House.

11.23 a.m.

Earl Winterton: it will probably be for the convenience of the House if I speak now, as being in charge of this Bench, and also as representing my hon. Friends of the Opposition who were Members of the Select Committee. In the first place, I wish to pay a tribute to the admirable appreciation—using the word in its old-fashioned bilateral sense—of the value of Question Time which we have just had from the right hon. Gentleman

the Leader of the House. I hope it will not be a very serious breach of the Rules of Order if I say, in parenthesis, that we on this side of the House, however deeply and bitterly we may differ from the right hon. Gentleman on political matters, are very pleased to think that he should lead the House, because he has such an acute respect for the rights and privileges of the House and of the public outside. While paying compliments, perhaps I might say something about the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Newton (Sir R. Young). Although it would be as wrong to praise or blame him as it would be to praise or blame you, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say how happy we are to serve under him. I think he will agree that, in the time that we have been sitting, we have been able to get through a great deal of very useful and valuable work. It is tribute to the work of the Select Committee that they were able to present a unanimous report on this matter.
There are one or two matters in this Report to which I should like to call the attention of the House because, after all, the Motion is largely part of the Report. I would call the attention of Members in all parts of the House to Paragraph 3 where we have said:
It is important therefore that Questions, especially oral Questions, should only be put down when other and less formal methods have failed to produce a satisfactory result, or when some information or action is urgently desired.
I think all hon. Members of the Committee—and I am sure the hon. Gentleman the Chairman will bear me out—are anxious that this point should be submitted to the consideration of the House and should be accepted by hon. Members. There is no question that it undoubtedly often happens that Ministers constantly have 30 or 40 Questions a day to answer. I see the Under-Secretary for Air is present, and I know that this has been my experience when at the Air Ministry as well as his experience and I do not doubt that it is also the experience of other Ministers. This involves a heavy burden of work which must be carried out, as the Leader of the House pointed out. But I do think—though this may seem a strange suggestion to come from someone sitting on the Front Opposition Bench—that in these times of great international and general strain there is some obligation


upon hon. Members not to put down a Question when they can put a matter by letter or in some other way. I say that without offence to anybody, and we have brought it out very strongly in our Report.
I wish now to deal with a delicate matter, but one which I hope nobody will resent. There are ways of saving time in the Question hour. There has arisen the most astonishing custom of hon. Members wasting time by rising to say, "May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer which will give the greatest satisfaction to my constituents." I venture here to say very vulgarly, "Who the blank cares whether the answer gives satisfaction to their constituents or not? "We are not here to listen to bouquets from hon. Members to the Minister for giving satisfaction to constituents, and while the hon. Members are thanking the Minister for his reply, which is in any event a complete innovation, as was pointed out by a supporter of the Government in the House, this is taking up a considerable amount of time.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer. I think that I am expressing the views of the Standing Committee by saying that while we do not want to place blame upon any particular shoulders, we were rather concerned, as the evidence shows, by the abnormal time which it takes to get an answer from a Government Department. If one sends them a letter—that is the other side of the question—it often takes weeks to get a reply. I know the great difficulty, shortage of staff, and I understand that there is difficulty in the typing departments of Government offices, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, if he will take this matter into consideration and tell us, as I am sure he will, that everything will be done to expedite matters. I often have my private secretary write to the Minister's private secretary, but even by that means it sometimes takes a month or six weeks to get an answer on a very simple case. I hope, therefore, that something will be done.
There is only one other thing that I wish to say. We on the Select Committee consider that we were abundantly justified in recommending that there should be no further curtailment of Questions and I would call attention to the point which we included in our Report about the manner in which the number of Questions has been cut down year after year. I well recollect

—I think it was in 1909—when the Questions were first limited to eight per Member—it is an interesting reminiscence to show how history repeats itself. Several hon. Members—I think I was among them—accused the Government of treating the House as the Tsar treated the Duma. The comparison with our great Ally, Russia has apparently been going on for 40 years under entirely different Governments in each case in disparagement of our Ally. In view of the genuine apprehension expressed on all sides of the House, not merely from the Opposition benches, I venture to commend the proposal to the House, and I think I can say without impropriety that the Chairman of the Committee will agree with me that this is by no means the end of the useful labours we hope to undertake on behalf of the House.

11.30 a.m.

Sir John Mellor: Although I think this is a reasonable proposal I am not sure that it is necessary. If we take the kind of instance quoted by the Lord President of the Council whore a Question is put down to the Prime Minister which obviously requires prolonged inquiries before an answer could be given, surely the reply could be made, as it so often is in this House, that the right hon. Gentleman is making inquiries and will communicate with his hon. Friend. This, I think, would be accepted not only by the hon. Member but by the House as quite satisfactory in the circumstances. This House is always a most reasonable place and if a Question has been put down to which it is unreasonable to expect an early reply because it obviously involves considerable detail, surely an answer of that kind would be accepted as adequate. Assuming that this proposal is considered desirable, I am rather doubtful whether hon. Members ought to accept it without stipulating some conditions. This is not an issue between the Opposition and the Government and certainly not one between the Front Benches, but concerns the back benchers of all parties. I think private Members should consider a little more before agreeing to this proposition as to whether or not they should lay down some conditions with regard to the restoration of the rights of private Members which have been so gravely impaired in this Parliament.
I should like to make one particular point. The real sanction which lies be-


hind our getting satisfactory answers to Questions is the power of back bench Members to raise a question at other times if they do not get satisfaction at Question time. At the present time, virtually the only opportunity they have is upon the Adjournment, and all Ministers and their advisers know perfectly well that the chance of a back bench Member being able to get the Adjournment before the Question has become completely stale is probably something like 20, 30, or 40 to one against. [An Hon. Member: "Nonsense."] I am speaking from my own experience. I have not had the good fortune once to obtain the Adjournment since the ballot began in this Parliament—

Mr. Pritt: Perhaps the hon. Member will forgive me for a moment. An hon. Member takes his place in the ballot where he is in competition with about 12 other hon. Members so that he should get the Adjournment in 12 days.

Sir J. Mellor: That may be the hon. and learned Member's experience, but I know that there are often more than 12 names down, sometimes 20 or more, and since the ballot began I have tramped that corridor day after day and I have never had any good fortune yet. As I say, it is well known to Ministers that the chance of back-bench Members raising a question on the Adjournment before it has become stale is relatively small, and that at the best it is speculative. I believe that this must have some influence upon the way in which the Ministers prepare their answers where the matters are rather ticklish to deal with, and I maintain that if that is the real sanction lying behind the right of private Members to obtain answers to Questions at Question time, they ought to consider for a moment whether it is a sufficiently strong one. In my submission it is not, and I therefore suggest that the House ought to require something in exchange from the Government for giving up their right to give one clear day's notice only for Questions. We ought to ask the Government to give at least one day to private Members per month, for Motions for which we should ballot in the old-fashioned way. I do not think that is an unreasonable request. It would add to our powers of raising questions on which

we have not obtained satisfaction at Question time. I feel that this matter would have gone through without further discussion if I had not risen. I hope there will be further discussion and that private Members who have been considering this matter will say whether or not they are satisfied that Private Members are having adequate opportunity in this Parliament for voicing complaints. I feel very strongly that Private Members have given up too much. This is an opportunity when they have the right to demand some restoration of their privileges.

11.37 a.m.

Mr. Driberg: The answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) about the kind of reply which we often get, "lam having inquiries made and will communicate with the hon. Member," is that it is not satisfactory to the hon. Member concerned, to the House as a whole, or to the Minister. Usually the sequel is a letter, some weeks later, which is not on record in Hansard, and the contents of which are not generally communicated to the public or to the House.
The proposal now before us is eminently reasonable and modest, and has been thoroughly thrashed out in the Select Committee, as hon. Members who have read the Report will realise. We should support it, especially taking it in conjunction with the assurance given by the Lord President of the Council that steps are being taken to communicate copies of Questions directly to the Departments concerned before they appear on the Order Paper. That will save half a day, or even a full day in many cases. I was extremely glad also to hear that there is some prospect of unstarred Questions being answered more promptly. That will mean a great easing of the tremendous overburdening of the Order Paper with starred Questions. Meanwhile, if I might make one respectful suggestion to hon. Members, it is that one way of getting a quick answer to a Question from a Government Department without waiting some weeks for a letter, and at the same time without incurring your just disapproval, Mr. Speaker, of oral answers about individual cases, is to put down a starred Question for a day on which it cannot possibly be reached.
My last point is about the Adjournment, which was referred to by the hon. Member opposite. I have some sympathy with him on the question of the ballot. I also have been extremely unlucky. I am not sure that the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) was mathematically sound. Therefore, I make one suggestion to you, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration. It is that we should continue to ballot for the Adjournment on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, but that Friday, when Business often ends early, should be a free day for the Adjournment, a day on which we could return to some of the earlier flexibility of this institution, and on which you, in your discretion, might call one or more Members who had really urgent matters to bring forward.

11.40 a.m.

Mr. Warbey: I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to join in the tribute paid by the noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) to the manner in which the Lord President of the Council introduced this Order. My right hon. Friend showed a high sense of the important function which Question time plays in our Parliamentary system. I desire, with him, to see a similar system applied in all other countries so that it might be possible for Members of Parliament in other countries to prod their Foreign Secretaries as actively as some of us prod the Foreign Secretary of this country. Some of our Allies—if not our great Allies, some smaller ones—have been greatly impressed by what they have witnessed of the functioning of Question time in this House. Some of them were here during the war and were very impressed by what they saw. At least one, our Norwegian Ally, has decided, as a result of what they observed here, to initiate a similar system in their own Parliament.
I am disturbed, upon looking at this Order, about one point. I notice that a Question handed in at 2.14½ p.m. on Tuesday will be answered within two days, on the following Thursday, but if handed in at 2.15½, one minute later, will not be answered until the following Monday. A difference of one minute in the handing in of the Question will result in a difference of four days in the answering of it. That is partly due to the fact that we do not sit on Saturdays and Sundays, and

partly to the fact that no time is given to the answering of Questions on Fridays. When 1 raised this point once before, I was a little surprised that the Lord President of the Council replied that it was not the practice of this House to have a Question time on Friday. I was aware before I came to this House that it was not the practice, but, as my right hon. Friend also said, there is nothing sacrosanct about a particular procedure for the receiving and answering of Questions. It is therefore possible to consider the extension of Question time.
I imagine that it would be out of Order for me to go into the reasons why there should be an extension of Question time to Fridays, but I believe I can indicate that in the application of this Order there is a reason for doing so. If we were to extend Question time to Fridays we would not have the anomalous position that a difference of one minute in putting down a Question will result in a difference of four days in the answering of it. I respectfully suggest that we should recognise that our Parliamentary work involves a five shift system, and that, if we require to sit, quite rightly, on five days a week, hon. Members should regard it as their duty to attend the House on five days, and that, if we have a five shift week, it should not be regarded as satisfactory that hon. Members should be satisfied with doing four shifts a week. It is not regarded as satisfactory in industry, and I do not think it should be regarded as satisfactory in the conduct of our Parliamentary business. If, therefore, we can adopt the practice of attending the House of Commons on five days a week, I suggest that we might also adopt the practice of having Questions on five days a week.

11.46 a.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): The Lord President has been so very reasonable in the presentation of this Motion that I hope he will extend his reasonableness to consideration of the suggestion made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor). The House, and, in particular, private Members, are asked to make a further concession of their rights to the Government, and, quite apart from the merits of the proposal, any concession of that sort surely entitles private Members to ask for the consideration of a counter-


concession. I doubt if there are many private Members of this House who are entirely satisfied in their minds and consciences that they have, with the present shortage of private Members' time, adequate opportunities to ventilate individual grievances and cases affecting their constituents, and, therefore, I would ask that the right hon. Gentleman should consider, not necessarily today, the suggestion which the hon. Baronet made that, at any rate, one private Members' day per month might be considered.
As the hon. Baronet said, the opportunities of an hon. Member obtaining the Adjournment are comparatively small, and I speak with a little feeling as one who, for the past month, has trod that corridor without any modicum of success, and I would doubt, with the greatest respect to the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) whether his mathematics are really right. If one's experience is, as mine has been, that one has to put one's name with 20 other names on 20 days, I should have thought that the odds were always 19 to one against one, but that is rather an interesting question of mathematics. What I am concerned with is the result of it, and the answer has always been against me. I do urge this matter on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and suggest that, whatever system of obtaining the Adjournment we have, the odds against a particular hon. Member are heavy, and that some further facility for the raising of individual grievances of one's constituents is requisite for the proper discharge of one's duties as a Member of Parliament. I am perfectly certain that a number of hon. Members opposite will share that view in their hearts, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if the House gives him the concession for which he asks today, he will consider the suggestion for a counter-concession. The right hon. Gentleman has a great reputation for negotiation and conciliation. I hope he will demonstrate that that reputation is well founded.

11.49 a.m.

Sir Robert Young: I hope the House will allow me to express appreciation of the very cordial way in which the Leader of the House accepted the recommendation of the Committee on this

occasion, and I would like to join with the Noble Lord, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), in the appreciation which he expressed. He very kindly referred to myself. May I be allowed to say how much indebted I am to each Member of the Committee for their kindness and help in all these matters. This is a question brought forward for the purpose, not merely of expediting the Business of the House, but of safeguarding in every sense the rights of the private Member. It was brought to our notice that there is some difficulty about Questions in relation to the time given to Ministers, and especially to those Ministers who have to answer Questions on Mondays. Seldom did they see either the Question or the answer to be given to it until the Monday forenoon, and consequently we came to the conclusion that something ought to be done in that direction. My hon. Friend behind me referred to the large gap between the answers to Questions handed in on one day and another. We have to draw the line somewhere, and I think the hon. Member would have objected a great deal more if we had suggested that the Questions ought to be in by 10 o'clock in the morning or 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Consequently, I do not think he need perturb himself about that. We intended to maintain the private Members' rights which they possess now, with the exception that, when Questions are handed in by 2.14 p.m., the answer will be given in two days' time.
I do not want to say anything about the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) and an hon. Member on the other side of the House. After all, these matters have been decided by the House for the present Session, and I think that, if hon. Members want to get a proper concession, apart from this, it will be their duty to press upon the Leader of the House when the next time comes for considering private Members' time. One question which was asked me by several hon. Members was about the location of this Table Office. Those hon. Members who wish to hand in their Questions will find the Office at the foot of the Gallery stairs, and those who want to send Questions by post will have to address their letters to the Clerk at the Table, but the letters must be there by 2.14 p.m.
I rejoice that the Leader of the House not only accepts the recommendation, insofar as alteration of the Standing Order is concerned, but has given the House an assurance that our ether comments and recommendation about non-starred Questions being answered within seven days, will be observed and also that the letters which are sent by hon. Members to Ministers—and I quite agree with the Noble Lord; I have had some experience of long delayed answers to letters—will be replied to within, say, 14 days. If any hon. Member does not obtain a satisfactory reply by that time, there is no harm in the Minister indicating to the hon. Member that the matter is still being pursued and that an answer will be sent in a very short time. I want to assure hon. Members that the Committee are particularly anxious to make sure that, whatever they do in relation to the Procedure of the House, it should be done in a way which will result in the better working of the Business of the House, while, at the same time, safeguarding the best and truest interests of hon. Members.

11.54 a.m.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: May I refer to the remarks of the Noble Lord the hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), and particularly to his reference to those superfluous words which we occasionally hear in this House when an hon. Member is thanking the Minister for his reply? I think I can speak about these words objectively, because I have never yet found myself in the happy position of being impelled to use them, but I have wondered if the use of these words does not arise from something like this type of origin. A great many of us back benchers and new Members have found that there is considerable difficulty in intervening in Debates at all, and I feel that, probably, hon. Members who are back benchers on the other side of the House have found this even more acutely than we have. Perhaps there is some impulse to use these words which is derived from an hon. Member's wish to satisfy his somewhat discontented constituents, that he is, in fact, in the House of Commons and taking some part in its Debates. Therefore, the solution of the question of the elimination of these supererogatory words would be if the Leader of the House could find it possible to lengthen the time available for consideration of Motions, so

that those of us who wanted to speak on a Motion did, in fact, get more chance of doing so.
There is another point to which I would refer. The answer frequently given by a Minister is that he will circulate to the hon. Member some paper or some letter which contains a reply which may well be of considerable interest to the House in general, or at least to more Members than the Member who has put the Question. In cases of that kind the reply should be incorporated in the Official Report, so that we can all benefit by the knowledge which would otherwise flow only between two persons. Finally, I am relieved to see that the Leader of the House is not asking, in the Motion before the House, for something which I dare say a number of Ministers would have been relieved to see granted, namely, that there shall be some delay between the original Question and the giving of an answer to a supplementary question.

11. 57 a.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Debate has been very helpful and friendly and I am grateful to hon. Members for the attitude they have adopted. I am grateful to the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) for the friendly observations which he made. With regard to Departments and written answers, steps have been taken by the Government to put it to them firmly and frankly that answers to non-oral Questions should not be given later than seven days afterwards, and that does not merely mean that answers should not take longer than seven days before being given, but that they should be given earlier than seven days whenever possible. I am sure that my right hon. Friends, the Ministers in charge of the various Departments, will not merely leave that as a circular from the appropriate quarter of Government, but that they will themselves give verbal firm instructions that this must be adhered to, and that in a case where there are exceptional circumstances whereby the rule cannot be complied with, they will require a special report from the officers concerned as to why it is not possible. If Members will follow up these instances, I feel that seven days is a reasonable outside limit in other than exceptional circumstances. Perhaps I speak with greater lightheartedness now that I am not a departmental Minister,


but in the light of my own experience I think that seven days is reasonable for an outside limit in other than exceptional circumstances, and I can assure the Noble Lord that every step will be taken in that direction.
I thought that the grievance of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) about private Members being treated badly did not quite ring convincingly. My recollection is that he himself does very well. The numbers of occasions on which I come into the House and am charmed to hear him making observations and speeches of one sort and another is considerable, and I am always glad to hear him.

Sir J. Mellor: Not necessarily on subjects of my own choice.

Mr. Morrison: I would only say that the hon. Member does very well. Evidently he is rather more clever, in relation to the average of percentages or in initiative, than the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) or my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). I do not think that I agree with his idea that it is quite all right for the Minister to come to the House and say that he is making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member. I have done it myself, and have been told, not without reason, that the House of Commons wants to know, that it is not only an hon. Member who wants to know, which is a reasonable observation. Although that has to be done from time to time the House does not take to it too kindly, especially when it has been said three times running. Ministers do not like doing it. We are anxious to treat the House with the greatest respect, and to make the utmost information available. I do not think that that is a remedy.
The hon. Gentleman and some other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) were doing a little bit of Eastern bargaining, in the sense of saying that if they were to be nice and good and gave the Government this facility, what had the Government to give them? I do not think that had the true Anglo-Saxon note about it. The Anglo-Saxon note is that we judge something on its merits, and that if it is right

we do it. The Eastern note is "Never mind the merits; what can I get out of you in return?" I am sorry to see this tendency, and 1 hope it will not be unduly developed. I note what they have said and will take it into account, but I am not in a position to say anything at the moment about private Members' time. I have a feeling that a nice further row will develop in due course, on some other occasion, and I will try to be ready for it, but I am not in a position to say anything at present.
As to the Adjournment, the fact is that it has become a very popular and useful institution. Often the opportunity of the Motion for the Adjournment was missed in. previous Parliaments on a high proportion of days, but in this Parliament it is very rarely missed. My belief is that this half hour Adjournment will become almost as outstanding a characteristic feature of the British Parliament as Question time itself. It will be a great thing to boast of in the world that if some one has a grievance, even a little one, it can be ventilated on the Floor of the House, and the Minister put on the spot, not merely by Question, but as a result of discussion, and it will be another example to the world. The fact of the Adjournment having become so popular is possibly the reason why Mr. Speaker had to invent some rough and ready guide whereby, I would not say that justice could be done, but that Mr. Speaker would be relieved of an invidious task. That is why the Ballot came along. It is one of those little gambles we have in the House of Commons when the Home Secretary is not looking. It solves a lot of difficulties.
I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon for his support. The answer he made to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was effective and right. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) is also making the best of the occasion and his argument about 2.14½ p.m. and 2.15½ p.m. was really not related so much to the actual merits of that case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Sir R. Young) said, a line must be drawn somewhere, and hardship is bound to be caused to the man who is half a minute late. I always feel sorry for that man, but there it is. What my hon. Friend was really doing was taking advantage of an opportunity


to revive the idea about which he pressed me some time ago, as he had every right to do, as to whether we might not have a pukka Question time on Friday mornings. I will be quite frank. The truth is that it would drive the Departments and the Ministers too hard. There are a lot of things done in Departments on Friday mornings, and also Cabinet Committees from time to time, which really cannot be done on other occasions because of the fact that Departments are heavily occupied. If Ministers were heavily involved on Friday mornings in answering Questions, it would be a heavy burden on the Departments and on Ministers themselves. I admit it would solve this four days gap, but that is the frank answer about it.
It is the case, as I was reminded in a note kindly sent to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Opposition Whip, that if something really urgent arose, Mr. Speaker would no doubt always be willing to consider, as in the past, the question of a Private Notice Question. The risk we run with these changes is that there may be a slight increase of such Questions, which are entirely within the discretion of Mr. Speaker as to their urgency.
If the matter is really urgent, it is possible for it to be met by means of a Private Notice Question, not that I am trying to stimulate too many of them, because the House possibly would not like too many of them any more than it likes too many Ministerial statements. I am very glad. that my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure told the House where the Table Office was As a matter of fact, I myself marked a minute to my own private secretary, "Where is this Table Office?" because, quite frankly, I was not sure. I thought possibly it was here in the middle of the Floor, but I was wrong. I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving the House that information
There has been a reference to answers to letters from Members. It was mentioned in the Report. We are doing our very best about that. I do not wish to stimulate debate on that subject, but the Government are doing their very best about answers to Members' letters, which are exceedingly numerous and about which Departments take a lot of trouble—

Sir R. Young: May I interrupt my right hon. Friend to say that this is referred to in Paragraph 12?

Mr. Morrison: I remember the point now, and I am obliged to my hon. Friend. One of the problems is the congestion caused by a great number of letters, more than ever before, I should think, and the difficulty with regard to clerical labour. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has put to me only this morning a suggestion that it would greatly relieve the Departments if the mere acknowledgement which many Ministers like to send could be done in a nicely and courteously printed note from the Department. [Hon. Members: "It is."] It is done by some Departments but it is not done by the Home Office. I am sure the House would not mind that being the case, anyway. It is the letter of substance that hon. Members really want, and the sooner the better. If that is done in some Departments already, that only shows how one learns when one tells something to the House of Commons.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: May I ask whether consideration is being given to the suggestion made in the Debate the other day, that Members of Parliament should be able to mark certain letters "Priority" so that they are not dealt with in a routine manner?

Mr. Morrison: That has not been dealt with so far. I doubt myself whether it would work. The tendency would be that there are so many priorities to be marked that it would be difficult to distinguish the importance of them. It reminds me of a story that used to be told in the late Government by the Leader of the Opposition, about a queue in Moscow. It was a long queue and some fellow came rushing up waving a paper. He went to the head of the queue and the whole queue shouted at him, "What are you doing going to the head of the queue? "He said, "I have got a priority." "Oh," they said, "We have all got priorities. This is the priority queue." That, I am afraid, might be the difficulty about it, but we are always open to receive suggestions.

Mr. Pritt: Surely, in actual practice it one has something very urgent to raise and one rings up the private secretary of the Minister, one does in fact get priority if it is a proper case. That is my experience.

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I think that is so. We do our best in these matters.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered:

" That for the remainder of the present Session the following paragraph shall have effect in substitution for paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 7:—

(4) Any Member who desires an oral answer to his question may distinguish it by an asterisk, but notice of any such question must appear at latest on the Notice Paper circulated two days (excluding Sundays) before that on which an answer is desired. Provided that questions received at the Table Office on Mondays and Tuesdays before 2.15 p.m. and on Fridays before 11 a.m., if so desired by the Member, may be put down for oral answer on the following Wednesday, Thursday and Monday, respectively.

Orders of the Day — PRIVILEGES

Report [27th November] of the Committee of Privileges considered.

12.11 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Report."
I thought that the House would wish to have an opportunity of considering the Report which the Committee of Privileges submitted last November, and if they agree with the Committee, of endorsing the conclusions which they reached on the case of Privileges which was referred to them. The practice appears to vary on whether or not the Reports of the Committee of Privileges are always dealt with by the House. I myself think if the Report of the Committee deals with these ancient and important issues of what in fact amount to Parliamentary law, it is very desirable not to leave it at the Report of the Committee, but the House should be given an opportunity of pronouncing judgment upon their recommendations. As a matter of fact even within the field of the matter covered by this Report, the Committee was a little embarrassed by the fact that on some previous occasion, which was relevant to this occasion, the Committee had made a Report but the House had never pronounced upon it. Consequently, it was a matter of the gravest doubt as to whether the recommendations as to Parliamentary law in that respect had really been properly confirmed. Therefore, I thought it right that the matter should

come to the House. I gather that in that view I am supported by the noble Lord opposite, as indeed I would expect to be because he is a very keen supporter of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons as a corporate body. The noble Lord is now a Member of the Committee of Privileges.
The position, as I understand it, is that unless the Committee's Report is formally approved by the House, it has no binding effect either in the present case or as regards the future, however valuable it might be for students of Parliamentary privilege or for the future guidance of the Committee itself. It seems desirable, therefore, that the House should come to an authoritative conclusion on this case which, as it happened, raised some rather new issues. I will not attempt to go in detail through the carefully reasoned report of the Committee, but it may help the House if I briefly state the facts and the conclusions which the Committee reached upon them.
As to the facts, the Committee found that two summonses to appear before a court of summary jurisdiction to answer to two informations laid in respect of alleged offences under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, were served on an officer of the House within the precincts of the House, on nth October last at about 9.45 a.m.; that the summonses were served by a police officer on duty in the precincts of the House by direction of his superior officers; and that they were served at the request of the officer who had preferred the informations. The Committee of Privileges were of opinion that a breach of Privilege was committed, but were satisfied that no breach of privilege, or disrespect to the House, was intended by any of the officers of the Metropolitan Police concerned in the service of the process. Moreover, the extent of the Privilege of the House in the matter was not well defined and no instructions had ever bean issued to the Metropolitan Police regarding the service of criminal process upon persons, other than Members of Parliament, within the precincts of the House. They accordingly did not consider that the case called for any proceedings on the part of the House against the officers concerned.
The arguments which led the Committee to the view which they took of the scope of Privilege in relation to this case


may, I think, be stated as follow. It is well that this argument should be on the records of the House. The case was novel in that the service of process was not on a Member but on an officer of the House and that, though it took place on a day when the House was sitting, neither the House nor a Committee of the House happened actually to be sitting at the particular time when the service occurred. The Committee started—this is the kernel of the argument—from the proposition that service of process on a Member within the precincts of the House, while the House is sitting, without the leave of the House first obtained, is a breach of Privilege because of the disrespect to the House which it entails. As the essence of the offence is the insult to the House, it is really immaterial whether the person on whom process is served is a Member or not.
It would, moreover, on this view, be absurd to draw a distinction between periods when the House or any Committee of the House, was actually sitting, and periods on the same day when this was not so. The rule can only be that service of process within the precincts of the House on a day on which the House, or any Committee thereof, is to sit, is sitting or has sat, will constitute a breach of Privilege.
The Committee go on to say that, in their view, the principles which apply to the service of process are equally applicable to execution of process. The Committee's views both on the particular case and on the extent of Privilege, in the circumstances, seem to me—if I may say this as the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges for the time being—to be reasonable. I speak with all diffidence on so complicated and technical a matter, but I think it can be said that in questions of Parliamentary Privilege the governing principle is the public interest, the primary consideration being the maintenance of the dignity and authority of Parliament, which is clearly of the utmost national importance. On the other hand, certainly in modern times, the House would not wish to stand unduly on its dignity, or to assert its rights without considering the public interest as a whole. In the present case there seems to be to be no doubt that, however unintentional, there was disrespect to the House in its corporate capacity, and that it is right that the authority of the House should be asserted.

As the Committee point out, there is no reason to think that the immunity from the service or execution of criminal process which, in their opinion, is conferred by the law of Parliament upon all persons within the Parliamentary precincts, could paralyse the arm of the law or obstruct the course of criminal justice. I am sure, however, that the House will agree with the Committee that, in the particular circumstances, no action is called for on their part as regards the two police officers concerned.
The House will wish to know that I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that a general Order has now been issued to the Metropolitan Police which should make the position quite clear for the future. My right hon. Friend has also brought the views of the Committee of Privileges to the notice of chief constables generally. I would add that in evidence the officers of my right hon Friend the Home Secretary were most courteous, as one would expect them to be, to the Committee, and said that if an error had been made they regretted it, as did the Home Secretary, though it is not quite clear whether on the state of Parliamentary law then existing, as so far interpreted, any blame would rightly attach even to the Home Office itself. Anyway, the Home Office have taken all proper steps to see that such an incident does not recur. Therefore, I ask the House, by approving the Report, to agree with the view of Parliamentary Privilege which the Committee have taken. There is only one other thing I would add, and that is to thank my colleagues on the Committee of Privileges for the courtesy, patience and attention which they gave to the matter which has resulted in the production of a Report which, in the light of our own experience, I think will be very useful to the House and the authorities of the House in the future.

12.19 P.m.

Earl Winterton: I must trouble the House with rather more extended observations than those of the Leader of the House because, although I agree, in principle, with the view which he has expressed, I think I diverge from his view in some details. I think this is really a very important matter and, perhaps, more important than might have appeared from the speech of the Leader of the House. In the first place, I support the right hon. Gentleman entirely,


and I am glad he drew attention to the need for all reports from the Committee of Privileges being considered by this House. I think past Governments and Members have shown themselves, in some cases, rather lax in not demanding that the reports should always be considered. They should be considered, and I hope it may now be taken as the accepted rule that they will be considered.
As to the Report itself, I do not know whether many hon. Members have the document in their hands, but it is a very interesting one. Perhaps I might make a personal and egoistic—though not egotistic—reference, and explain that, by inadvertence, I was left off the Committee of Privileges; I was not a member of it at the time, although I was a former member and am now a member. I am, therefore, entitled to criticise the Committee because I was not a member of it at the time. Membership of the Committee of Privileges is a very important function for Members to perform, and I think all of us, whether we are Members of the Government, or sit on the front Opposition bench or on the back benches, regard ourselves when we are members of the Committee of Privileges as acting in a semi-judicial capacity, and, therefore, we do not necessarily accept the views of our colleagues on the benches on which we sit. I have no reason to suppose that any hon. Members on the bench on which I sit or behind me disagree with me, but I wish to make it clear that I was a former member and am now a member of the Committee of Privileges.
I would like to draw attention to page v of the Report, in which is the following passage:
 The circumstance that, in this particular case, process was served by a police officer on duty within the parliamentary precincts if anything aggravates the breach of privilege, since the officers of the Metropolitan Police who are on duty within the precincts are there only for the purpose of assisting the Serjeant at Arms in carrying out the orders of the House and maintaining order and decorum within the precincts.
Frankly, I think Mr. Henderson should have been aware of that fact. He is not here as a police officer. He is here to carry out the instructions of the Serjeant at Arms, whereas in this case he deliberately acted as a police officer and never consulted the Serjeant at Arms. Having said that, the Committee go on,

at the end, apparently, to exonerate Mr. Henderson from any blame. They may have been right, but I must say that, in the circumstances, Mr. Henderson would have been well advised to offer an apology to the Committee, and, through the Committee, to this House, and this, I think, applies also to the deputy chief constable of Shropshire. Quite obviously, Mr. Henderson was not aware of what the Committee have properly laid down. Although he is not here as a police officer, he made himself a party to serving a summons on an officer of the House.
Let me refer to what I would describe as the slightly jejune evidence given by Mr. Barnwell, the deputy chief constable of Shropshire. This deputy chief constable took the attitude, "I know nothing about a Parliamentary procedure, I am the deputy chief constable of Shropshire." He was asked this question by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party:
 There are one or two things that I do not quite understand, Mr. Barnwell. This accident occurred on the 6th September?—Yes, Sir.
When was it reported to you?—It came to my knowledge first of all on the 15th September
Then you were given, I suppose, upon that date the registered number of the car?—Yes.
And tracing the registered number of the car took you to Gloucester?—Yes.
Then you got the information that it was Sir Ralph Verney?—Yes.
Having obtained that information, this question was put to the witness:
 The Lord President of the Council has already put to you, and we know, what is the usual practice of the police?—Yes.
The answer had been that the usual practice was to serve a summons not at a man's place of business but at his home.
As far as it is possible to do so you avoid either writing or serving any process upon a man in his place of business?—Yes.
You see, you did quite the contrary. Why did you do it?—I did not look upon Sir Ralph as a man at a place of business.
I do not know what he thought this House was; perhaps he had never heard of the House of Commons.
 I wrote to him privately almost, although, of course, it was official—
What he means by saying that he wrote to him "privately almost, although, of course, it was official," I have no idea—
 and I was anxious really to get this matter cleared up between myself and Sir Ralph.


Then the hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party continued:
 What was the hurry? The accident was on the 6th September; it was reported to you on the 15th September, and then on the 29th you wrote?—Yes, I think I was hoping, or at least expecting, that there would be some explanation about the offence which had been committed and that he should get a fourteen days' notice if it were possible or get notice within fourteen days of the prosecution.
Incidentally, I understand that no prosecution of any kind followed. I can only describe the evidence of this gentleman as unfortunate. I am glad to hear that the chief constables of this country are not a law unto themselves and that they are going to receive very definite information as to their relationship with the House of Commons.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): They have already received it.

Earl Winterton: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on sending that information.
Now let us come to the evidence of Mr. Henderson. He also seems to have been rather doubtful about things. He was asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House:
 The Committee would like you in the first place to tell us shortly and in your own way factually what actually happened when you delivered the Summons?—Yes, Sir. On 0th October at about 6 o'clock I received a message from my Superintendent at Cannon Row that correspondence had come through from the county police, Shrewsbury; it had come to the police superintendent from Scotland Yard …
Then he describes the rather complicated procedure which, apparently, the police have when serving a summons of that kind. He goes on to say that on the morning of the nth he came to the Palace taking with him the papers and the two summonses referred to. I do not want to be unfair to Mr. Henderson, but I think, as I said before, that he ought to have been aware of the fact that he acts under the instructions of the Serjeant at Arms, and that before accepting instructions from a superior officer he should have gone to the office of the Serjeant at Arms and asked whether it was in order to serve a summons upon an officer of this House. I take this opportunity of saying that it would be as well if Mr. Henderson and, indeed, the whole of the Metropolitan Police Force, realised the obligations which rest on them towards this House.

For example, supposing the police improperly allowed a mob to approach this House and to intimidate hon. Members, they would be answerable to the House itself. I understand that we could demand the attendance of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Force at the Bar and ask him why he had not carried out the instructions sent to him. They are instructions of this House, and have, as I understand, the force of law. It would have been a graceful act on the part of Mr. Barnwell and the Inspector if they had apologised to this House for what I regard as an unintentional but, at the same time, gross breach of discourtesy to the House itself. As I have said, I am very glad to hear that full instructions have now been issued setting out the correct position. It is only fair to say that I agree that the law of Privilege—if it can be so termed; I am not sure that that is correct—on this particular point has been in doubt.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Report.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL

Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday next.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — TECHNICAL EDUCATION

Motion made, and Question proposed,.

" That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

12.30 p.m

Mr. William Wells: It is now nearly two years since the then Minister of Education, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), appointed the Committee known as the Percy Committee, which took its name from its Chairman, to investigate the question of higher technological education. The questions which I am going to raise go rather beyond the scope of this Report, but I should like to take from its opening paragraphs two statements by way of my text. The first is:
 The evidence submitted to us concurs in the general view: first, that the position of


Great Britain as a leading industrial nation is being endangered by a failure to secure the fullest possible application of science to industry; and, second, that this failure is partly due to deficiencies in education.
The second statement in the third paragraph, says:
 At present too large a proportion of the best output of the schools goes into non-industrial occupations, and positive steps are necessary to counteract this drift.
The questions which I am raising are: What positive steps are being taken to counteract this drift? and: "What positive steps do the Government intend to take? This matter, as I see it, resolves itself into two subsidiary questions. The first arises in connection with secondary technical education. How are we now to raise its status and so ensure an adequate supply of craftsmen and technical assistants? The second is raised directly by the subject matter of the Percy Report. How are we to stimulate and organise higher technological education so as to produce an adequate number of industrial scientists and managers with a good technical background?
In the years immediately before the war, there was a lamentable shortage in quantity and a very considerable failure in quality in the provision of technical education for young men and women. In 1939, there were 25,000 boys and girls receiving education in junior technical schools as compared with 500,000 receiving education in other secondary schools. It would be useful and helpful if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary could tell the House today what the comparable figures are now. I believe there has been a considerable increase during the war years.
There has been, and is, as the Percy Report says, a failure to direct the best type of boy into this kind of education. I have some figures, taken merely at random, concerning an institution with which I happen to be connected. Out of 47 boys who were selected for secondary and technical education at this institution none was Grade A, 16 were Grade B, 23 were Grade C, 7 were Grade D, and one was Grade E. One must be cautious in examining statistics of this kind because the obvious question is: How many boys out of an average selection will be Grade A? If the answer to that

question was only 2 per cent., it would clearly not be very remarkable if out of 46 or 47 boys none was in the first grade. But if it be the fact, as I believe it is, that the more accurate figure is about 20 per cent., then it is a lamentable thing that no boys should be taken into technical education who are included in the highest grade
We have to examine the reasons for this failure in the past to attract the best kind of boys and girls in sufficient numbers into technical education. One of the reasons, no doubt, is what is regarded quite wrongly as the narrowness of technical syllabuses. The tendency is to take the view that a boy who is good enough to get any benefit out of a literary education must not be given a technical education, because he will not have the opportunity to develop into a citizen who fulfils the ideal of a well-equipped mind in a healthy body. I have here an extract from a letter written by a headmaster in 1939 with reference to the selection of candidates for training in what was then called a junior technical school. He wrote:
 I think ' X ' is a suitable pupil for admission to the school. He is undeveloped mentally and physically, his arithmetic is very weak, but his handicraft is good. He is a quiet, well behaved boy, very willing and docile.
That leaves the idea that those who are subjected to technical education are to be the hewers of wood and the drawers of water, and it is an idea which, I am sure, is absolutely abhorrent and repulsive to all of us who sit on these Benches and, I should imagine, to hon. Gentlemen opposite as well.
The first reason is the ill-founded idea that boys and girls who get a technical education are not looked after in other ways as well, because they spend part of their time learning bricklaying or plumbing or whatever it may be at a building trade school. But, if one is a governor at one of these places, one spends a good deal of time selecting people to teach them English and the normal academic subjects. Then, of course, there is the question, which unfortunately enters into English education at every stage and at every level, of social prestige and background. I have only to look at my own constituency, where there is a grammar school to which my right hon. Friend has very rightly denied the status of a direct


grant school, and a technical college, the grammar school, both the boys, and the girls, part, stands in the better part of the town with playing fields and attractive buildings, while the technical college is housed in an out of date building in a drab and ugly part of the town. There is all the difference between Richmond Park and Shoreditch. The boys and girls who have been through the grammar school feel, with justice, that they are citizens of no mean city, whereas the boys and girls who go through the technical school will have had very valuable training, but they will not have had the background, which in our view every boy and girl is entitled to have, of good amenities and a pleasant environment.
The third reason why the best type of pupil is not drawn into technical education arises from the fact that pupils arc not taken into technical education at the age of 11. There is a process of creaming off, whereby the best go to the grammar schools and the rest go into modern schools. At 13 there is a further process of selection, and we are then brought up against a decision of the Burnham Committee, in its wisdom last year, that the salaries of headmasters were to be partly dependent on the number of children over 15 whom they had in their care. The natural consequence is—one is often told that human nature does not change—that the headmasters do not send to technical schools those whom they regard as promising pupils suitable for education after 15 and so naturally headmasters keep the best pupils for themselves. I submit that that decision was either the most crass idiocy, or deliberate sabotage of technical education. In addition to all these reasons there is the fact that the technical school has, altogether, an inferior academic status.
May I quote from a paper read by Dr. Drakeley, the principal of the Northern Polytechnic, last December. He said:
 In general, it is true to say that the status of the subsequent training available to the selected pupil leaving a secondary technical school for more advanced technical study is not equal to that offered to the pupil from the secondary grammar school. But the fault does not lie with the secondary technical school; it is due to the completely inadequate recognition of the status of higher technological education.
The whole of this subject is connected with the fact that in this country, to the detriment of both normal and commercial life, and of the universities them-

selves, there are too few university graduates in relation to the rest of the population. Taking the years 1932 and 1934, whereas in the United States one out of 125 of the adult population was a university graduate, in Germany one out of 604, and in Spain—before they enjoyed the advantages of their present regime—one out of 655, in this country the comparable figure was one out of 919. Here again that figure should not be over-emphasised, because our academic standards may be, and I believe are, somewhat higher in this country, but it is a tendency which is unfortunate and wrong.
The Percy Report brings in three essential questions. The first is, are we to have a system of regional advisory councils and academic boards, with a national council of technology at the apex? The answer to that question has already been provided by the Minister, and it is "Yes." The second question is, are we to have national colleges of technology, concentrating in one centre the national resources for study in specialised subjects, and, if so, is it the object to bring those national colleges within the framework of the universities, and again, if so, on what terms? Thirdly, if we are to have this national council of technology and national colleges, what qualifications are they to award? Is it to be a diploma or is to be an academic degree? I will not pretend to offer any suggestions about which is better. Opinion is sharply divided amongst experts, and I am not an expert, but at any rate I do urge upon the Minister that it is essential to give some recognition which shall raise the status of technical education sufficiently for it to compare with that in other countries.
I have concentrated on omissions and weaknesses—on the darker side of the picture. One must not over-emphasise that. Good work has been and is being done in technical education. There are many devoted workers and some most promising developments. It would be foolish to waste time in this House saying how good things are, and that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. No great industrial nation can ignore technical education and remain a great industrial Power. I think that the Percy Report was rather badly balanced in its outlook and concentrated too much on the engineering industry, but it pointed to a definite deficiency in training men of graduate or equivalent status before the war.


The annual requirement in that industry was 3,000 and the annual output 2,000. In this respect the engineering" industry does not stand alone. We must not ask too much of the Ministry of Education, and ask them to set right tendencies which are partly academic, partly social and partly economic. Their powers in this matter are limited, but a gap exists which it is vital to fill, and we arc entitled to ask what steps in this direction the Government intend to take.

12.47 P.m.

Mr. Durbin: There are two points which I wish to make, following on the comments in the most interesting speech of the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells). One is the need for a higher output of highly qualified technical experts from the universities. The universities are the sole source, and must remain the sole source, of the highest qualifications in physics, engineering, chemistry and many other subjects of the greatest importance in the development of research and technical efficiency. If, in addition to this, we are to enlarge the basis of technical schools and colleges, we bring forward another stream of the most capable men and women to the universities. This means, in addition to the many reasons which have already been given for an expansion in our university capacity, an increase in the number of our university students. This is not the only claim upon the universities. There is need for an increase in the kind of specialisation provided by the social sciences. Then there is the enormous demand which will be made upon the universities by the growth of the teaching profession to provide the required standards of teaching in the schools. A modest estimate has been made that we should require at least 50 per cent. increase in the number of young men and young women in the universities of this country.
Yet I am informed by those who have looked into this matter that, with one honourable exception, there is no university in this country which is making any plans for a substantial increase in its numbers, and certain universities are proposing to reduce their numbers. My own university, so far as I can discover, is undertaking no programme for any increase in the number of undergraduates, and I understand that some colleges are

actually proposing to reduce their numbers. If there is any substance in this information, which was collected by responsible people and reached me through a responsible source, there is no prospect whatever, unless something is done, for even a 10 per cent. increase in the number of undergraduates in the course of executing the plans now being made by the universities.
The first question I would, therefore, like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education is whether he and his right hon. Friend the Minister are really satisfied that they are communicating to the universities, with sufficient clarity and force, the essential need which the universities are called upon to meet. I should be the last person to wish to curtail, in the slightest degree, the splendid traditions of academic freedom which exist in this country, but it is necessary that there should be some body, or some person, charged with the duty of explaining to the universities what is needed from them. We should go beyond anything that has been provided in this field in the past as a result of the discussions between the university authorities and the Universities Grants Committee. I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to satisfy himself that the universities are aware of the extent of the need which they alone, among our institutions, can supply.
The second point which I wish to put forward also arises out of what the hon. Member for Walsall had to say about the size of the university population. One of the reasons why the universities are so unwilling to consider an increase in their numbers, and an expansion of the facilities which they provide, is because they are afraid that any further increases would be accompanied by a decline in the intellectual capacity of the young men and women who come within their walls and, therefore, in the standard of the work that could be done.
I would submit to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the universities that the existing statistical evidence does not bear out this conclusion. Unless we are to make the assumption that we are inherently less intelligent than our American friends, there is every reason for believing that 10 per cent., at least, of the male population—statistics are not available for the ladies—would benefit


from university education. That percentage was arrived at as a consequence of the investigations and researches made into the entry into the American Forces. On that basis there could have been, without any lowering of standards, 100,000 male undergraduates in the universities of this country in 1938. In point of fact, there were 50,000. I know of no experienced university teacher who would dispute for one moment that at least 40 per cent of those who were there ought not to have been there on educational and intellectual grounds. They were there merely because of the wealth, and the sacrifices no doubt made by their parents. They were there not because they could benefit from the activities carried on within the universities, but because their parents could afford, or were willing to pay, the fees. That means that of the 100,000 boys who could have maintained the intellectual level of the universities, there were only about 30,000 in them. Roughly speaking, only one in three of the boys who should receive university education actually get it.
One of the most pressing of our social problems is, where do the two out of the three boys go who do not find their way into a university? It does not take a wide experience of the society in which we live to know why these two-thirds of our capable boys are not inside university. It is either because at the break from the primary to the secondary school, or from the secondary school to the university, their parents cannot afford the necessary fees to enable the completion of their education.
So the second and last question which I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary is this: Is he convinced that the need for a more generous provision for children of 11 and also children of 17 and 18 to complete their educational careers will be supplied in time? We must have a marriage between the rate at which universities increase their capacity to receive students and the arrival of a large number of boys and girls capable of benefiting from university education. I, therefore, would like to suggest that it is time we considered once more the relationship between the Treasury, the Ministry of Education, the University Grants Committee and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors in order to see that this increase in supply and the growth in the capacity of the university, are properly

and efficiently married in the years to come.

12.57 P.m.

Mr. Palmer: I am sure the House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) for raising this matter. Like my hon. Friend, I have had experience of being a member of the governing body of a polytechnic. In addition, I am an engineer, and, therefore, not only have I been able to take some part in operating the system of technical education, but I have also been operated on by it. For too long technical education in this country has been the poor relation of education in general. At one time it was possible to define technical education as education for ordinary use rather than for intellectual or spiritual profit. I feel that that attitude is now out of date. In the broad sense technical education is education relating to any vocation whether in the commercial arts, in medicine or anything else. I am particularly interested in using the definition that technical education is related to engineering and industry.
Broadly, industry requires three classes from technical education. It needs, first, skilled craftsmen, second, technicians—I know that expression is used rather widely these days, but I intend to confine it to the middle grade, to foremen, draughtsmen, testers and people like that—and, third, of course, engineers. I also use that phrase in a limited sense, confining it to the higher positions in industry such as the positions of research and the executive jobs. The Percy Report, to which my hon. Friend has referred, gives a rather more precise definition, and, in any case the recommendations of the Percy Committee are concerned entirely with the third class, professional engineers whose qualifications are governed by the three great engineering institutes—civil, mechanical and electrical. It has been emphasised already in this Debate that the Percy Report estimates that the country needs at least 3,000 civil, mechanical and electrical engineers every year to fulfil the present needs and that the present output of the universities and the technical colleges combined hardly suffices to supply this number,
I want to return to the three classes that I mentioned. The first problem we


have to face is that selection is all important. I think it is true that in the world of engineering and technology there is in the end one supreme test only and that is, can he—or she for that matter these days—deliver the goods. All the lectures on the need of improved technical qualifications cannot add very much to the ability and the skill of the new engineer who will be checked in the hard world of matter where a successful performance is everything. If this is not understood at the beginning, it will certainly be found out in the end. Politicians may cover their mistakes, doctors can bury theirs, lawyers can lodge an appeal, but the engineers are always pursued by the inconvenient, ever pressing query, Does it work? There is no escape from it.
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Durbin) indicate that, turned out of the universities every year, are a great number of men who are unsuitable for any responsible job in engineering and quite a number of other subjects as well. Those who have some practical experience of industry know that there are far too many engineering graduates who are unsuitable to belong to the profession. We may have been able to afford that sort of thing in the past, but today the country cannot afford such a wide margin for trial and error. I want to suggest that all entrants to technology and engineering pursuits should be weighed carefully and certainly intelligently so that the obviously unsuitable should be transferred to more appropriate studies. I suggest that for the higher levels—and I commend this to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary—the most workable system would be one where an engineering graduate spends a year in industry on practical manual work, between leaving his secondary or other school and embarking on his university course. Such a period would allow for that subtle and temperamental adjustment which is needed. If that was done it would enable many men to decide for themselves whether it might be better to go in for music, or some other career. Others could be weeded out by reports supplied as a result of intelligent co-operation between education institutions and works managers.
When we come to craftsmen, there is usually a closer check, from the beginning,

on their practical performances. None the less, the training of craftsmen is important. Here, there was a most marked failure in our prewar system of technical education. The junior technical schools were, I believe, established about the turn of the century. In a sense they have been fairly successful. But the field of craftsmanship was not filled from these schools. In fact, it is estimated that 80 per cent. of the output of these schools finished up in non-manual occupations. Therefore, we have this problem: How to create a physical and psychological attraction which is equal to the appeal of the non-manual occupation? I do not think it is any good being pompous, and talking about the dignity of labour. The status of the craftsman must be raised, and the best way to do that is to raise pay and improve conditions. I suggest that that probably means that we must have in industry some of those principles in which Members on these benches believe.
The prewar position in technical education was, roughly, this: that the universities, technical colleges—from both part time and full time courses—and junior technical schools all fed into the supervisory and black-coated grades in industry. The result was great duplication, waste, confusion and quite a lot of frustration. I have here the National Certificate figures for the years 1934–1939, and it is astonishing to see what a great leakage there was from the courses, how many started and how few finished. In prewar industry we had quite a lot of young men with qualifications of various kinds, but the industry lacked sufficient men to fill the senior engineering and technical jobs and sufficient craftsmen with a good background of technical knowledge. During the war this difficulty has been overcome by a forced, hothouse, process of specialisation for a particular number of limited jobs. Obviously, that process cannot be continued indefinitely. In the long run, we must face the fact that technical and technological education is not a matter for the Ministry of Education. It depends on the co-operation of every section of the industry, including employers, professional institutions, trade institutions and the trade unions.
In the past there has been a considerable amount of indifference on the part of employers to technical education, and, if we are honest, we must admit that there has been a certain amount of misguided


suspicion from the trade unions towards the implications of technical education. I think, however, that that is now passing. Too much technical education is carried out on a part-time basis. Employers have been, and still are, reluctant to release apprentices and students during normal working hours for attendance at theoretical studies. I could say quite a lot about my own personal experience in this matter. I know something about getting up at dewy dawn, spending a long day in the workshop and then going to the Polytechnic to finish at nine or ten o'clock at night. I do not think it did me much harm. On the whole I enjoyed it, but it is not a good system, although it is fine training for this House. I think I would rather discuss a point of Order at 9.30 p.m. than a differential equation.
I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to bring to the attention of the Minister of Education the need for the introduction, in co-operation with the Ministry of Labour, the trade unions and employers, of a national apprenticeship certificate which would give proof of theoretical knowledge combined with practical training. Various schemes are now operating in certain industries, but there should be a scheme on a national basis. I would like to add my voice to what has been said about higher technological education. I feel that the broad principles of the Percy Report should be adopted. If they were, and there was a proper apprenticeship system for craftsmen, new strength, dignity and effectiveness would be added to British technical and technological education.

1.14 p.m.

Mrs. Leah Manning: I am sure we are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) for raising a matter of such great importance to the future prosperity of our country. We regret that it is only Members on this side who seem to be interested in this question. I would like to reinforce some of the things which have been said and to raise two points which have not so far emerged from the discussion. I would particularly like to refer to the dangers which my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) referred to, because I believe that most of those dangers arise, in the first place, from the fact that we segregate at too early an age those whom we believe to have

academic ability from those women we believe to have technical ability
I trust that the Minister of Education, in developing her plans, will urge on local authorities to have, at the least, secondary schools which have a double bias. At the present time there is nothing that leads to such ill balanced education, and such unbalanced development of many of our young adolescents as the fact that they are segregated, before they find out what they can do and what they would like to do, into secondary schools which, give only an academic education and prepare them only for examinations. I think it was Sanderson of Oundle who discovered a long time ago what a great fallacy it was to believe that boys and girls who were highly intelligent and who had the finest minds were not interested; in technical education. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to encourage, as far as he can, this very important facet of education, and to see that young people, however fine and academic their minds may be, have the advantage of a technical education as well I am convinced that some of the very finest of our academic minds are also our finest technical experts, and it would be of great adantage, not only to industry but to science and research, if they were given the possibility of these two types of education. That can only be achieved either in a common secondary school or in a double bias school.
With regard to the technical education of girls and women, hon. Members who have spoken so far have referred to this only as an afterthought. They have sometimes said" or she "and" or, in these days, women "; but it is obvious that it has not been in their conscious thought that women and girls have a right to this kind of education. Undoubtedly, the small amount of technical education which has been given for women and girls in the past has been due to the fact that local education authorities have thought that only boys and men were capable of profiting from such education. One has only to look at the prospectuses of some technical schools, and one sees offered to women and girls cookery, laundry, millinery, embroidery—all those arts in which women are supposed to surpass men, but which really are intended to give women the components with which to make men., happy and comfortable.
I suggest that women have the right to technical education for their own development, and in saying that, I think I must receive the agreement of everybody who remembers what women did after Dunkirk. We would never have got the turn round after Dunkirk if it had not been for the competence and willingness of women to take advantage of the Government training which was offered at that time. Women went into the factories in a most amazing way, and showed enormous skill in the most precise kinds of work which hitherto nobody had thought it possible for them to do. Are we now to throw away all that, or does the Minister intend, in the development schemes which come before him, to make sure that girls and women have a chance to receive that kind of technical education which has been a sort of precious sanctified belonging of the male sex in the past?
I do not want to be unbalanced or intolerant. It has always seemed to me to be very unfair that we should not give boys and young men the chance of profiting from those kinds of education which, in the past, have been left exclusively to women. So very little has been done to teach boys to cook, and yet the best, or at any rate, the most highly paid, chefs are men. Why do we not give them these chances in the technical schools? I know of only one attempt to do this in the past, and that was at the school in Vincent Square, where before the war I could get a Ritz meal at Woolworth prices. At that school boys were given a good training in cookery and hotel work. I suggest that, instead of segregating boys and girls and segregating academic and technical types, they should all be allowed to choose from the various things offered in a programme set out by the technical college.
The other day I asked the Minister of Agriculture about his plans for agricultural education. There have been some extremely interesting and important reports on agricultural education, particularly the Loveday Report. It did not seem to me that anything was being done to implement those reports, and I was surprised to hear from the Minister of Agriculture that the development of agricultural education was a matter for the Minister of Education, and that in all schemes for further education it was the business of the Minister of Education to

see that agricultural education was provided. Of course, agricultural education is technical education of a very important type. In the past, industry—textiles, mining, building, engineering—has had the services of the technical schools and colleges, but very little has been done in the way of offering a good agricultural education in the technical colleges. I would like to have from the Parliamentary Secretary a definite pledge that, if he is responsible for further agricultural education, he will see that the technical colleges in the counties which are surrounded by great agricultural areas provide that agricultural education which is necessary for the development of the industry in this country. The time has long passed when we can regard agriculture as being something quite outside the ordinary industry of the country. It has now become almost completely industrialised, it is very largely mechanised; and it is of the greatest importance to see that the technical colleges provide the possibility of doing the research which is necessary.
Therefore, I ask two things of the Minister. Will he see to it, in his development plans, that there is the possibility of girls having the same kind of technical education as boys? Will he see that in the county technical colleges—I do not say that these courses should be given in Manchester and Birmingham—an agricultural course is offered, that the local authorities try to find out what demand there is for agricultural education of this kind, and that the county technical colleges are obliged to offer a course? Incidentally, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon that part time courses occupy too much room in our technical colleges. In these days there are very often many part time pupils filling places which might, with greater advantage, be filled by full time pupils. We should find out what demand there is for agricultural education in the counties, and give every possible opportunity for boys, and girls as well, to come into the technical colleges. This should lead directly on to university education, because we must see that agriculture has the very finest brains, as well as hands, that can be offered to its service.

1.24 p.m.

Mr. Benn Levy: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) that this is an extremely important subject, and it


is very well that it should have been brought up in this Debate. I find myself unexpectedly provoked into taking part in the Debate, very briefly, and I expect very raggedly, provoked by the surprisingly obscurantist attitude of many of my colleagues on these benches. There has been during recent years a good deal of argument in favour of the extension of technological education and I view some of these arguments with the greatest alarm because technological education is really vocational training and not education at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) started oft gaily by saying that, although he agreed with the classical thesis that education should be useless, in point of fact technological education should not be condemned out of hand on the ground that it was too useful. He put forward a tentative claim on behalf of the uselessness of technological education. Then he proceeded immediately afterwards to give his whole case away because he went on to quote, for example, the Percy Report which pointed out that industry needed 3,000 electrical engineers annually, and that therefore it was the job of technological education to provide them.

Mr. Palmer: If I may correct my hon. Friend, I said 3,000 electrical, mechanical, and civil engineers.

Mr. Levy: It is a technical if not technological correction which I accept, but which does not for a moment deflect or invalidate the argument I was pursuing. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping also claimed the advantages of technical education, but, in the very next breath, condemned it for women in the form of cookery, millinery, and embroidery: for, let there be no mistake, these are forms of technical education.

Mrs. Manning: May I again correct my hon. Friend? He needs a great deal of correction this morning. I said that I did not wish these to be the prerogatives of women. Of course, I agree that they are a form of technical education, and a very good form, but I do not wish women to be allowed to have only that kind of technical education or men to be excluded from it.

Mr. Levy: I do not wish men or women to be condemned to only one kind of so-called education, which is technical education, because I maintain—and I feel


this very sincerely—that the purpose of education is to expand the consciousness of the individual, and to open the windows of the world to him. It is not, let me say most emphatically, to provide competent fodder for the industrial machine which it seems to me has been the tendency of the arguments in this Debate up to now.

Mr. Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a person who goes into industry and becomes part of industry is well educated for life? Industry itself cannot be excluded from life.

Mr. Levy: This is liable to evolve into one of those rather metaphysical Debates if I follow the hon. Member in that argument, and I am afraid that I am responsible. From the remarks I have already made, I, myself, quite obviously do not think that technical education does have the same effect as education in what used to be called the "humanities." The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Durbin) did make a point which might be a bridge between our two points of view, because I agree that if technical education is carried on to the more stratospheric levels of the university then my hon. Friend's claim might conceivably be admissible. As the hon. Member for Edmonton pointed out, however—and I am grateful to him for doing so—that is precisely the bottleneck and it is in the lower strata of technical education that the product is improved machine hands and not fuller and more perceptive human beings.—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]—That is the view I take, and I feel that it is perhaps useful, even if my hon. Friends now agree with me, that I should have relieved them from the misunderstanding which, quite possibly, they would have left in other minds as well as my own.

1.31 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I am very grateful that this question has been brought before the House today because I consider that technical education is one of the most important aspects of the work which falls to the Minister of Education. I know that I am fortunate to follow the provocative speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) because I feel that he has brought into the Debate a little of that old-fashioned point of view on


training in technical matters, which has been the main impediment to development in the past.

Mr. Levy: May I interrupt my hon. Friend for one moment since I did give way several times myself? With regard to this question of the old-fashioned point of view, when I charged my colleagues with obscurantism, which is a much stronger word, it was precisely on these grounds. My objection to education in the past has been that it has stopped at so early an age, 11, 12, or 13, and that, thereafter, boys and girls were thrown out into the world because they were needed in industry, and their education was considered of secondary importance. I maintain that we must not fall into the same error by saying, "Well, from 11 or 13 onwards let them be made more efficient for industry "but equally accept that their education must stop.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Member for interrupting me, because I think he made much clearer the actual aim he had in mind. He expressed a fear that we were making improved machine hands through our technical education. I believe that it is quite true, that we shall be making improved machine workers, but that is incidental. There is nothing wrong in improving a man's efficiency at his work, if, at the same time, you are broadening his education, and I am sure that the old fear in the labour world about technical education can be and is now about to be, overcome by the greater developments which the Percy Report made possible if the Ministry is alive.
In Wales, for instance, technical education has been, for years, the Cinderella of the education system. There has been—and not only in Wales I believe—a sort of inverted snobbery, which has kept people from allowing their children to receive a technical education although their special gifts were obviously in that direction. We know that the junior technical schools have been looked upon, very often, as the schools to which the child could go if he was not lucky enough to get into the secondary grammar type of school. That attitude has to be broken down. In Wales technical education has been constantly neglected, with one or two shining and notable exceptions. In the city of Cardiff there is the second largest technical college in the country,

but in rural Wales the facilities for children to develop along those special lines are almost negligible. In Montgomeryshire at the present time, experiments are taking place and technical education is beginning. We are bound as the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) has said, to have an agricultural bias in those areas, because technical education can never be divorced from the type of industry which is available in some degree to enable the child or the student to carry out experimental work. That is not to say that they want to train particularly for a special job, as was suggested.
I am anxious that the Minister should make it clear that he will have regional advisory planning. It is the only remedy for the lack of technical education in Wales. The advantages of varied industry, well known in the Midlands and other parts of the country, are denied to large areas in Wales. Today there is greater possibility of expansion in the Principality, because new types of industry have been brought in. The war has proved the adaptability of our people in technical education. I ask the Ministry of Education to carry out the recommendation of the Percy Report that advisory councils should be put into operation in Wales.
The hon. Member for Epping brought forward a constructive suggestion when she asked for double-bias schools. One of the reasons why technical education has suffered in the past is its isolation from other types of education. We must now see that the young people of really high intelligence and of good academic ability take up the technical side of education. The aim of education has been defined admirably by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough. There are many definitions of education. Education fails if it does not give the individual an opportunity to develop latent and potential powers to the full. That is why we have the right to say that it is cruel to try to fit a child into a special mould, academic or technical, and that we must have double training. The link is essential, if we are to get, in common business terminology, our money's worth out of the system which has been set up.

1.39 p.m.

Mr. Cobb: This Debate is very important, and we are indebted very much


to the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) for raising it. We depend upon the efficiency of technicians in industry for our future standard of living. The lack of interest in this matter by His Majesty's Governments in the past has meant that British industry has suffered and that the people of this country have suffered in their standard of living. This is a matter in which action is rapidly and urgently needed. Our standard of living will depend upon our industrial efficiency. Industry today is inefficient during the stage of reconversion. In about two years' time, when industry has settled down after the reconversion period, we do not want it to return to the prewar humdrum increase in output per man-year of about 1½or 1¾ per cent. per annum. We want something better than that. Our ability to get something better will depend upon the technicians in industry. Our ability to improve efficiency after reconversion, will depend upon better methods and better machinery. We shall need a better supply of technicians, and also better technicians. Even though we train more people now, they will not be available for industry for some years. There were not sufficient such people before the war; we must see to it now that they are provided as quickly as possible.
I would like to have followed the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Durbin) relating to the universities, but I feel that I ought not to do so, as when the Parliamentary Secretary comes to reply, it would give him an easy get out. I have endeavoured in the past to put Questions to the Minister of Education on this matter, because the Minister seemed logically the person who should answer them. For some reason the Questions were always referred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It is impossible for me today to deal with this fascinating matter of the universities in relation to technical education. Therefore, I shall confine by remarks to two short points, with which my hon. Friend can deal. The hon. Member who opened the Debate said that the right type of individual was not coming forward from the primary and secondary schools for technical education. I believe the reason to be that many teachers have the wrong bias, and a snobbish outlook. They do not know industry, and will not take steps to find

out about it. They often tell their students, even in the elementary schools, to look for a "white collar job," and not one in a factory. When I have been managing a factory employing 1,500 people or so, I have visited the local school teachers and I have said: '' You are turning out people who will work in my factory. Please come and look at it." They would not do so, because they were not interested. I have found the same attitude in university professors and teachers. They will not go to an industry, and look at it, so they do not know the conditions which obtain there.

Mr. George Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that in many parts of the country the schools organise visits to factories, in order that such an interest shall be awakened?

Mr. Cobb: I am aware of that, and I am glad of it, and would like to see it extended. I would congratulate the Ministry, through the hon. Member who is to reply to the Debate, because I understand they have recently arranged for annual leave up to six months for elementary school teachers to work in industry and get experience. I wish them success in this bold and useful experiment. It deserves very great success.
I would refer to one other matter, namely, the question of equipment. Technicians cannot be trained without equipment. I want to deal with two points—the ability of the technical schools to order and obtain equipment from the manufacturers, and, secondly, the ability of the schools and technical colleges to get their fair share of the war disposal equipment, of which there are vast quantities in this country. Firstly, technical colleges were very badly equipped before the war. Their equipment, by and large, was out of date before the war, and ought to be brought up to date now. In so far as the equipment is having to be obtained from the manufacturers, it has not a sufficiently high priority. I have investigated cases recently in which equipment has been on order for 12 months, and there is still no promise of delivery from the manufacturers, whereas I know there are other customers being supplied in two to three months. I commend this point to the Minister and ask him to see that real drive is put behind it.
On the question of surplus equipment I would say that during the war large


quantities of technical stores have been made, which are very suitable for the use of technical colleges, but there does not seem to be any organised attempt to see that the technical colleges and schools of this country get their fair share. I can give the Minister some idea of what is going on. I was talking to one professor the other day who went to an auction sale of some of this surplus equipment. He had to get in by means of a friend, who had a ticket for the sale, and he managed to buy some equipment which he wanted for his college. When his colleagues saw what he had got, they said, "Can you get us some of this stuff?" but, when he tried, he found it had all gone. They, therefore, had to go to the dealers who bought it, and then they found that the equipment which the dealers had bought for 10s. an item was now being offered for sale to this professor's college for as much as £20. This is a matter which the Minister ought to look into very carefully. There are vast stores of equipment in the country which ought to be sorted, so that universities and colleges could be given a chance to get their fair share before it is put on the market to open tender. In addition, it would save this country a considerable amount of money.

1.48 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Marshall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Wells) on bringing this subject forward, but, at the same time, I am very sorry that it should have happened on a Friday, and that my own party on this side of the House should display the amount of interest in the subject shown by the number of Members on these benches. Nevertheless, it is one of the most important subjects which this House could profitably debate. I regret that I was not able to be here when the hon. Member opened the Debate; I had to be elsewhere on a matter of education. I am not, therefore, fully aware of what has gone before, but I am keenly interested in this matter of technological education from two angles.
From what I have heard in the past few minutes, it would appear to me that speakers have been dealing with it from the junior point of view, and I agree that it does require a great deal of attention and encouragement from the Minister.

There is also, however, the far more important aspect of technological education in regard to the higher training services available in this country. As regards the junior technical schools, in many districts they arc very efficient and very well run, and they provide one of the most valuable sources in existing secondary education. I know that it is not customary to refer to junior technical schools as being of a secondary type, but it is to be done now under the new Act. Hitherto, it has not been regarded as secondary education, though, in actual practice, it has been one of the finest forms of secondary education which we have had for years, and its products have gone very far indeed. The only pity has been that they have not had facilities given to them to go even further in regard to obtaining degrees in universities. I hope that, under the 1944 Act, this will, to a large extent, be remedied, and I am also hoping that the Percy Report, and the suggestions made in it, will, in the not too distant future, be implemented by the Minister.
In regard to junior technical education, under the new Act practically every school must have at least a dual bias, and I am certain that the education authorities, in getting ready their development plans upon which one hopes they have been engaged, and which have to be sent to the Minister by the first of next month, are fully alive to the importance of technical education and will, in the development plans which they will put forward, make adequate provision for junior technical education in order that this Act shall be able to bestow the utmost benefit on every child. It is not true to say that teachers, as a whole, have looked down on boys and girls going into factories or workshops. I do not believe that: for a moment, and, therefore, I cannot accept the remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Mr. G. Thomas) in that respect. I think the fault lies, and has lain, with the local education authorities themselves, within whose power it was to provide technical education for the juniors, and, now that their eyes are open to the need for more technical education, I feel sure that, in the plans now being-prepared and to be presented to the Minister in due course, we shall find that they are awake and alive to that fact, and will, in their development plans, include a great percentage of a definitely technical


bias. It is not a question of the idea of grammar school education being exploded.
In Surrey, we are having a hectic time because we are producing a plan for a comprehensive school for the whole area to which boys and girls shall go from the ages of 11 to 13 and receive a comprehensive education on a curriculum which has yet to be worked out, but which will provide for the child with a high intelligence quota making rapid progress through the comprehensive school, and also ensure that every child has an opportunity of exhibiting, through its ability and talents, the direction into which it wishes to be guided in the secondary education to be received later. We hope that, under that plan, in our schools in my own county, we shall be able to provide education for a very large percentage of boys and girls of a definitely technical nature, but, until the Minister produces some scheme whereby the universities are able to provide courses and degrees in technical education, more than is the case today, a great deal of the work which we are hoping to do will be thwarted.
In regard to higher technical education, the Home Counties, together with the L.C.C., last autumn had a conference which met on many occasions in order to prepare evidence for the Percy Committee. That conference represented no less than eight million population in the Home Counties surrounding London and, with London, something like 15 million people. It revealed that the provision of higher technological education is, to a very large extent, non-existent in a large area. London University by no means provides a sufficiency of higher technological degrees and study. The most that boys and girls who go to our junior technical schools can get is the diploma. That is not good enough. It does not take them far enough. We want them to be able to go on to university and get a recognised technological degree, to which the ones now offered, with their limited scope, are not comparable. We hope that the Minister will induce universities to enlarge their borders considerably, in order that technological education shall receive the recognition which is overdue to it in this country. We cannot boast of any of our technical institutions in this country. We have some very good ones, but we cannot say that so far as the rest

of the world is concerned they are of outstanding quality. They are nothing like those at Charlottenburg, Berlin, Massachusetts, Leyden, or Stockholm, which are far above anything we have in this country.
In the North of England technical education has naturally advanced more than in the South. One might easily be able to argue the reasons for that. As an industrialist myself, although I live in the South, I have for many years recognised the urgent need there is for numbers of fully trained technicians in industry in our part of the country. There has been a trend since immediately after the 1914–18 war for industries to come South. To some considerable extent, I am glad to say, industry has been brought South. I would have liked to see the Southern counties recognise that fact by attempting to provide a great deal more technical education than they have hitherto done. It has taken another war to wake us up to our needs, not merely in this but other directions, and I am hoping that one of the outcomes of the good we have to take out of evil will be to wake up those who claim to be educationists to the fact that one type of education to which we have given so much in the past is not the only type of education. After all, when Adam and Eve were created, one of the first things they had to do was to provide purely technical education for Cain and Abel. I imagine there was no other education needed in those days. It was not until later centuries that the philosophers and grammarians came into existence and pushed out the technicians, as they appear to have done over the following centuries.

Mr. Levy: May I remind the hon. Member of what happened to Cain?

Mr. Marshall: Of course, his class exists everywhere. Today the Home Secretary has to deal with them, and in spite of all the technical education we provide, the Home Secretary may, in his particular sphere, have to deal with people who are akin to Cain. The revelation has come to us, not merely to provide an advanced type of education but to reward those who study it sufficiently for them to get the fullest recognition by degrees in the colleges. Manufacturers and industrialists will, in the future, look to employing technicians who have some recognised qualification. We do not want the B.Sc.,


Tech., or B.Sc.Eng.; that is not sufficient. I am sure that the Minister can initiate a scheme which may take a time to do, but which will undoubtedly produce a type of highly qualified technician, equal in any respect to any persons who can go through the colleges today and get their high degrees in the arts.
I look forward to the time when I shall see technical trades in this country being classed equally with the arts and sciences, and getting their fullest recognition, not merely in industry but in the Navy, Army and Air Forces. The fighting Services will in future practically consist of technicians. Therefore, we shall be at one with the Armed Forces of this country by providing highly qualified technicians and all the opportunities we can, to see that no longer shall the grammar schools absorb all that is supposed to be best of the brains of the country, but that some of those who possess brains, coupled with a technical bias, and who today go to the grammar schools, might be diverted into the technical colleges and universities, and have adequate and full recognition of their education in that direction.

2.2 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: It is perhaps not the right moment to make this comment, but having been here for most of the Debate—I have no intention of being discourteous to hon. Members whom I see on the benches opposite, an for whom I have the greatest respect—I would say that it is a fact that throughout the majority of this Debate on a matter of fundamental importance to British industry, there has been only one hon. Member sitting on the benches opposite. Apart from that one Member we have nothing but
bare ruined choirs, where late the sweet birds sang,
assuming that I can call the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) either sweet or a bird. It is a matter for some pride that the Labour Party have consistently taken a greater interest in scientific and technical progress than any other party in this country. It is again a matter for comment that none of those Independents or Liberals who are so often flaunted before the electors as persons who take a supreme interest in matters of this kind, have attended this Debate today.
I desire to offer only two comments. I hope that my hon. Friend, for whom we on these benches have a great admiration, who is to reply, and who has had great experience in these matters, will take particular note of the first one, because it is a point which is causing a great deal of anxiety to scientists in Britain at the moment. It is this: There is a very serious hold up in technical education and research in the universities, as the result of shortages of certain kinds of equipment which are, in fact, available in the form of surplus Government stores. I am not asking my hon. Friend for a reply now, but I hope that he will make a note of the point and deal with it. There has been an instance in Birmingham University of a shortage of radio and electronic stores which has, in fact, held up Professor Oliphant in relation to important scientific research to which it is not necessary for me to refer to in detail.
I would suggest that an ad hoc organisation should be formed by the Government, first, to prepare a list of surplus Government stores in the form of scientific apparatus which could be utilised; second, to have that properly classified; and third, to have it allocated to the universities in accordance with their needs. If one had gone to the trouble of obtaining the necessary information from scientists from these universities an enormous case could be made out on this subject. I am sure that it is the kind of thing which is bound to occur after a war, but it is something that could very easily be put right. I do hope my hon. Friend will pass on this urgent need for an ad hoc organisation to allocate surplus Government stores in the nature of scientific apparatus for this marked and desperate need of the universities at the moment.
The whole subject of technical education depends very largely upon our having a proper sense of balance as between other forms of education and technical education. It is a matter, of course, upon which Members of the House on all sides, irrespective of party, may have sincere differences of opinion. Being myself a classical scholar, I would like to offer an observation to my hon. Friend whose sympathies I think indicate that he would perhaps be against the point of view I am putting forward. Being a classical scholar, I would say that I do not think my classical education has ever done me


any good whatever. I can well remember an occasion when we had at Rugby School, where I was in the sixth form, a play called "Œpidus Rex," which is now being performed very excellently by the Old Vic Company. I can well remember that after people had attained a great deal of perfection in the ability to translate this play, at the end of the term the master, who was a very distinguished master, still alive, suddenly said to the class, "Now, I want you all to write down what the play is about, what the object of the play is, and what principles the play right has been trying to put across." I can assure my hon. Friend there was not one member of the class who had the slightest understanding of the essential principles which underlay the drama. I am now speaking of the lower sixth form.
Therefore, I think we have got to this fact. If we are to get a proper balance in education we must recognise that there is a vested interest in classical education today, and it is very largely a financial vested interest. If we are to have a proper balance, we must be prepared, His Majesty's Government must be prepared, in various ways, if necessary by endowing scholarships, to make sure that we have that balance which will ensure that the British genius in scientific and technical respects is able to develop even more to the full than it has done in the past. On that point, let us not for a moment despair. We are entitled to be of good courage because our British scientists have achievements to their credit which are quite remarkable, and in the sphere of scientific and technical education I think we can say that from the point of view of the natural genius of our people we are unrivalled and unchallenged among the nations. In order that we may preserve our position, it is essential that my hon. Friend and the right hon. Lady the Minister of Education should do everything in their power to ensure that scientific and technical education of all kinds has an added impetus given to it in accordance with the principles for which we fought so long.

2.9 p.m.

Mr. Skinnard: I was particularly interested in the speech of the distinguished educational administrator opposite, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall). On occasions such as this, we all find a deep

and general concern on both sides of the House for the urgent reconsideration of the basic philosophy of our educational system. We have in the past had the traditional form of education setting the pattern for the country. The "vested interest," to which reference has just been made, in fact has held back the progress of the country. We have been trying to take an industralised nation and treat it like mediaeval England. It is a sad thing for any country when its educators are running 20 years behind the bus to catch up, but it is even sadder when they are running 200 years behind. The point has been adequately stressed, I think, that we do not want technical education developed purely as a means to getting a particular kind of job. I have been engaged in education for many years and had to find out what I was really after, whether I was trying to make a full man or a full woman or whether I was out to serve a particular need of one small section of the community in which my pupils and students were growing up.
We have found this difficult. I am sorry to say the attitude of the employers in the South of England has very often deterred the very advances which the hon. Gentleman opposite wants us, quite rightly, to make. So contemptuous the employers of England, nurtured in the tradition of the industrial revolution, have become of our traditional educational system, that they will very often say to a head of a school, "We do not want you to help us in any way. We prefer to take the raw article and train it ourselves." One could sympathise with that attitude, because, quite candidly, while we have done in our schools all that we could to make the children ready for the kind of life they were going to, we felt it was not our job to make technicians in a particular industry. It was our job to condition the minds of the children to use to the full the opportunities of useful work and enjoyable leisure open to them when they left school. Because of that contemptuous attitude on the part of the employer, the attitude of the teacher has very often been "All right, we won't help industry at all. We won't take any interest in it because all they want is a lot of white slaves standing by an endless belt, and we feel the children should be prepared chiefly for leisure so that they can have something to console them for the kind of life these employers want them to have."
The real function of technical education would be the creation of adaptable interest and intelligence, not a mechanical aptitude for any particular process. It has been true in the past that, where employers could get hold of the technical institutes and colleges, they have tried their best to see that this was a cheap form of apprenticeship for their works. Under the new Education Act, we are trying to give a sound, general, full education of a secondary character to every child between the ages of 11 and 16. I am one of those who believe that we shall have failed to eradicate the weaknesses obvious in the present system, unless we do achieve the common secondary school, because that is the only one in which there will be no class bias and in which all the three types of human need will be catered for.
I believe that the real problem of technical education, as the hon. Gentleman opposite said, lies in what is going to happen to technical training after the age of 16. Before that age, we have general education to consider, and part of an all-round good general education is technical ability and adaptability. I would like to see a common examination in the common secondary school. If we cannot have a common secondary school as I envisage it, if we have to have the three separate types, the modern secondary school, the ersatz one, or what is likely to be the ersatz one, the technical school and the grammar school, I say if we are to make the dream of a real secondary education for all come true, then we will have to have a common examination, if you will, an extended and democratised School Certificate with a great variety of choice of subjects and options, as they have in the best American and Canadian high schools.
Today we have been told that the term "technical school" appears to be something less than the best, that it is a consolation prize for those who have failed to get into the grammar school. Anything more ruinous to a country like ours than that attitude I cannot conceive. I did meet with that attitude, curiously enough, in the Far West of America on one occasion when, because of my interest in the handicapped child, I asked the superintendent of schools in a great American city where the mentally retarded children were to be found, and he replied "We have a special technical high school for

them, called after Thomas Jefferson." Mentally retarded children are not so mentally retarded as to be unaware of what that means. We must get out of that habit, both in America and in this country, although it is more usual in Britain.
It is obvious that technical education connotes a second best in our minds, trained as we are in the old conception of the so called liberal education. It should not be so thought of. There is need for the development of the child's manual and technical ability as well as for grounding in the liberal arts. They can only be fully and efficiently trained in the secondary stage up to the age of 16 in an institution which provides for all sides of education, and the tests given in the school should provide for the utmost freedom on the part of the child in choosing the subjects in which he wishes to become proficient. After a really thorough grounding in training of a secondary character between the ages of 11 and 16, surely the pupil's direction should easily be ascertainable. In this country, given an equality of status, I have no doubt that a large majority of the boys and a very considerable proportion of the girls trained in the common secondary school, would opt for further technical education, or else to proceed to jobs where their technical ability could be used to the fullest extent. The proof of that has been in the terrific development of the Air Training Corps during the war.
In the North of England and the Midlands there have been admirable technical institutions. We have at least one institution in this country worthy to rank with the Boston "Tech" which is often referred to as the most marvellous institution of its kind. I am referring to Loughborough College. Loughborough did not try to do everything in technical education at once. It began as the germ of an idea, capable of infinite development as the need arises. It tries to find the growing and changing needs of the community and then to serve them, and there is no higher aim than that. In Southern England, because we have not in the past been a highly industrialised area, we failed to realise the change that was coming over us. If one looks along such highways as the Great West Road and the North Circular Road one sees nothing but a conglomeration of the light industries


of this country. But the only training for most of the boys and girls who wish to enter those industries has been found in the senior schools in this country. The proof that the development of those schools has been on the right lines, despite the handicap that their pupils left at the age of 14, has been demonstrated by the adaptability of the young operatives they poured into the war factories. It is, surely, proof that in the common secondary school lies the key to the future of education in this country.
Equipment is a very sore point. One hon. Member mentioned that there was no contact between the schools and the community which they existed to serve. I entirely deny that, for while the bulk of teachers have rightly been suspicious of the motives of local employers and manufacturers, they have endeavoured, in a very great many cases, to give their pupils a thoroughly good idea of the community in which they would eventually have to work. I would earnestly commend to the Minister a directive to all secondary schools to make a social and economic survey of the neighbourhood obligatory in the last year in any secondary school. In the surveys in which I have had the privilege of taking part, we found two requirements were served. First of all, the child became an interested citizen and, secondly, the not so interested citizens outside became interested in the training of their eventual successors. I had little difficulty in obtaining equipment, although I was not technically knowledgeable.
I, too, have suffered from a classical education, but I did become, willy-nilly, interested in the industries of the neighbourhood in which I worked, because I found that when it was seen that we were trying to give an all round education, we were given tools, machinery, blue prints and machine parts, so that we were thoroughly equipped on the technical side. I am not advocating that for education as a whole we should go cadging from the manufacturers and the shops in the neighbourhood, but it is a sign that if we only go the right way to work and say what we are after—the providing of an intelligent population of keen citizens and technically efficient persons who are able and willing to make great strides in the industries they choose—we need have no fear that industry itself will not come to our assistance and do all it

possibly can to ensure that the technical college and institute, and secondary school is very well equipped with apparatus.
One of the great difficulties in the South of England with regard to higher technical education has been that, although we have had a very large number of technical institutes and junior technical schools doing extraordinarily good work—to name only one, the building schools which have done extremely good work—there is no great inducement to go beyond the age of 16. By the age of 16 the pupils have become interested, but they have not become craftsmen because they are only beginning to make their choice of a future career. Having no inducement to continue further, the student goes straight into industry and usually remains at the level at which he enters. That is a bad thing, because industry has to choose its leaders from the technically ambitious, and the only way to do that is to provide a higher technical education comparable with any universities which will make it worth while for a child of 16 to continue in engineering or any other type of technical subject, knowing that he will come out thoroughly equipped in the job he has chosen and not inferior in status to those who have chosen the more academic path.

Notice taken, than 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and 40 Members being present—

2.25 p.m.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: I would like, first, to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) and to assure the House that, so far as I am concerned, I am extremely interested in the subject of technical education. It is my great regret that I was not here during the whole Debate. I would suggest that this issue of education is a non-party one, on which we and hon. Members opposite can see eye to eye without the slightest difficulty, and one on which, I hope, we shall be able to evolve some technique, whereby we can consult with them to help them in a good cause, which is what I am seeking to do. It seems to me that the hon. Member for King's Norton was making a very good point on the distinction between academic and "useless" education on the one hand, and technical or purposive


education, as I prefer to call it on the other and that purposive education starts under a very great handicap.
It was suggested that there was a financial vested interest in the academic and so-called "useless education." That, of course, is true, but I think it is a matter more of tradition than of finance. If anybody has any ability at all, the forces which are canalising him in the academic channel, are very great indeed. That is due largely to the fact that the academicians can point to the success of their particular type of education. This success is however due to the quality of the intake rather than to the inherent merit of such education. In other words, if you put all white balls into one bag, and all black balls into another, it is not surprising that when you draw out from one bag you get more white balls than you do out of the other. There is also the factor that the civil servants in the Ministry of Education itself, are brought up on an academic, rather than on a purposive education. Like the hon. Member for King's Norton, I had a classical education and I have heard of "narcissus." I also know the term "narcissism." It seems only right that the Permanent Secretary of a Department and those under him should feel that their prime objective in life is to give to the people of this country precisely what they themselves have received. "Look "they say" what good chaps it has produced "—and they are good chaps, and I want to emphasise that they are. There is not necessarily a connection between the two, and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary of that Ministry to remember that there are educated people abroad who have got a completely different curriculum in every single respect. The curriculum of education, is not education.
I strongly support the plea from the benches opposite that the whole policy of education in this country should be thrown wide open for discussion, amendment and improvement. As I have said, I do not think this is a matter of vested interest; it is rather one of pure honest tradition. In this House we have had those who can quote Horace. In Mr. Gladstone's day the working man, not unnaturally, said: "Mr. Gladstone is a great man, and can quote Horace. There-

fore, if I learn Horace, I shall be a great man." There is a non sequitur in that, and I think we must recognise that the foundation of education is interest. It is true that education is transferable and that if a person is educated in any one kind of human activity, he can transfer his ability and education to another kind. One cannot however necessarily transfer one's interest, and I think that this country has completely demonstrated the fact that there is a wide variety of interests in the people of this nation. If only people are definitely interested in something, then education gallops forward with tremendous success.
I should like to take up a point which was very well made by the hon. Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard). He made the point that technical education—he instanced building—having brought people up to become educated people, leaves them stranded on a beach without any possibility of further progress. To my mind the villains in this piece are the universities. It will be the duty of the hon. Gentleman opposite who is going to reply, to make entry into the universities much wider than it is at present. Just as somebody with a classical education can take up Radar, or any other subject, with complete transferability, so somebody who has taken up Radar or building as his educational background can equally well transfer to the study of history, modern languages or anything else.

Mr. Cobb: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he agree that this matter might be put right to some extent if the administrative grades of the Civil Service were thrown open to the technicians?

Mr. Pitman: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has made that point, and I agree with him entirely. The Civil Service Commissioners have made a movement in that direction, which I strongly welcome. But they still have a long way to go, and I hope this House will help to push them along that very desirable path. I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his very useful and constructive suggestion. I would like the hon. Gentleman opposite to realise that I am not offering these remarks in any carping spirit. I wish to keep a proper balance between academic and useless education, on the one hand, and technical and purposive


education on the other. For the right person, the academic is extraordinarily good, but there are millions of people in this country for whom anything useless, or apparently useless, is dismissed as not worthy of attention. It is for those millions that I am pleading.
I would also like to support the plea that the modern school should not be for the riff raff of the educational community. If the hon. Gentleman accepts our plea, that there are two vehicles for education—the academic and purposive—then, surely, those are the two foundations upon which to organise the interests of human beings. They arouse an interest in two classes of human beings—the person interested in doing something for the sake of what is done, and the person who is interested for the sake of knowledge. They are two different classes, and those two fields ought to appeal to all of us. It seems to me that each of those fields should carry its own fair percentage. In my view it is quite inhuman to segregate those with any apparent intellectual shortcomings, because after all those may not be intellectual shortcomings but the accidents of the vocabulary of the English which they hear at home. It is quite wicked to segregate these people, and mark them as rejects from the social community right from the beginning. I therefore join very wholeheartedly in supporting the hon. Member for East Harrow in his plea in that respect.
I have one minor point which I think is indicative. It is the subject of correspondence between me and the Minister at the moment. I have been carrying on that correspondence in general and not in specific terms, because it seems to me that there is constantly a discrimination against purposive and technical education. The way in which the Ministry of Education is using the words"qualified teacher" is a very grave hardship. They have invented this term "qualified," which does not mean "qualified" in general, but qualified for a particular type of school, the existing secondary or elementary schools. There are literally thousands of qualified technical teachers who have to go about under the denigrating label of '' unqualified "when, in point of fact, they are as qualified as anybody else. I feel that the attitude of the Ministry is to treat these people as dirt, and say they are not qualified, because they have not been through a training college.

Mr. Skinnard: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the difficulty he is now presenting to the House would disappear, if the university standard of technical education were introduced, so that the technically qualified people who wished to teach their subjects could attain a status equal to that of a university graduate in the arts or in pure science?

Mr. Pitman: Yes, I would agree, and I welcome that interruption. The point I am making, however, is that even then, it would be well for the Ministry of Education to call the black black and the white white, and not to muddle the two. To use a general term like '' qualified '' for a limited number of people is, by inference, a dirty smack at the people who do not fall within that particular category. That, as much as anything, is what these people resent very greatly. I know that from the letters I have had. There is also the use of the word "efficient." The Ministry seems to like to use general terms and apply them to specific cases, and thereby imply that a great number of technical schools, which really are first-class schools, are inefficient because they are not on the list of efficient schools. I ask the House for support in urging the hon. Gentleman to reconsider the wording used in the classifications in his Ministry.

2.39 p.m.

Flight-Lieutenant Haire: I wish to add my support to those hon. Members who today have clearly made a case that in the past in this country we have put too much emphasis on a so called liberal and academic education. I feel that one of the reasons why this is such a good Parliament, particularly on this side of the House is that we have the technical side of education, and the experience of the workshops and of the technicians, so fully represented on our benches, alongside the academic education that has been given to those who have come here through the universities. I also feel that too much of our industrial and commercial personnel is selected on the basis of academic qualification when, in fact, the possessor subsequently does not require that qualification at all.
As a practising educationist myself, I remember that on one occasion I was called to do certain educational research on a number of adolescents in a juvenile instruction centre organised by the Ministry of Labour. In that centre we had a


number of unemployed boys and girls of the age of 16 to 18. It was remarkable how much of their elementary and secondary education had disappeared. So many of those boys and girls who had been in industry and commerce for a year or two had really no hangover of what we might call the liberal elements of their education. They were interested in industry as they had found it, and approach to them was not along the academic level at all, but was through their technical understanding of the world they had experienced. I suggest that that angle introduced much more freely into our secondary schools and grammar schools would indeed be a most useful element. Those of us who were schoolmasters know only too well how often our interest in outside problems, and in encouraging our pupils to take an interest in the world around them, was subordinated to the demand of the qualifying examination and the curriculum, which was almost 1oo per cent. academic. If my hon. Friend on the Front Bench today can say that he will consider the introduction into our secondary and grammar school curriculum, of an increased and increasing amount of technical education, I feel sure he will have the support of the whole House.
There is, I think, a further reason for encouraging technical education. Today our society is integrated; we hope that the old class distinctions are breaking down. We hope that there will not be continued emphasis on the value of the white collar worker, but that he in fact will come to understand the nobility of work in the workshop, while the worker in the workshop will understand the use and purposefulness of the man in the office or in administrative work For that reason, I do not think we ought to encourage in the schools the conception that we must train our pupils for the black coat and white collar jobs, but we can only break down that conception by increasing interest in the workshops in cur schools. I would like to think that no pupil would be given a certificate who had not done a period of work in the wood-work shop or the metal-work shop, or, perhaps, in a rural school, who had not taken full interest in agriculture and horticulture. Girls might be encouraged to take an increasing interest in domestic economy, needlework, and so on. I hope we shall forget

about the liberal education which we stressed so much in the past, and which was a hangover of mediaevalism, and try to achieve that balanced education which is so necessary in the world today. It is an education which not only includes the academic but also the technical side. This technical education, which in the past has been the Cinderella of education, is something which we should bring into our secondary schools and universities, and not leave to some poorly-equipped, old-fashioned building where it proceeds with difficulty and is unattractive to many.
The Ministry is about to set up county colleges. I do not think they have been mentioned so far in this Debate, but surely these colleges must in fact be mainly technical, as they will be for young people who have been in industry. I do hope that that side of education will be stressed when they come into being.
I wish to add a plea for the release of technical students from the Forces who have already done some of their technical education. The Minister will possibly say that that is no concern of his. Surely, a recommendation from his Department to the appropriate Department will carry considerable weight? It is here that we feel that technical education has been neglected. After six years of war, it is essential that we should get our technical education going again. We shall not get it if he places this very restrictive embargo on the release of young students from the Forces who have already done some technical education or wish to begin. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give that matter his consideration.
I agree with the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer), who I thought made an excellent point, in suggesting that before students, at the age of 16, take up a particular job, they should be given an opportunity of experiencing that job in their daily life. I suggest that a student who wants to go into engineering should have, say, one year's experience of that work before continuing his technical education. Too often we find that pupils are directed into a job because of their parents' interest in it, or because a parent thinks that the job is a nicer one than he has been doing and his child will have a better standing. We ought to consider the pupil first and foremost, and some opportunity like that suggested


would be most useful. Let us go forward, therefore, in the future, with technical education standing alongside academic and university education, and let us hope that we shall be able to say that the technicians of this country are second to none in the world and that the quality of our technical education is the reason.

2.47 p.m.

Major Guy Lloyd (Renfrew, Eastern): The subject raised is one in which I have always taken a very deep interest, and it is comforting and refreshing to find speakers on both sides of the House apparently united in putting forward, with great commonsense, matters which, in my opinion, have needed emphasising for a long time. I agree with everything that has been said, on both sides of the House. But to get down to "brass tacks "and supposing we are right in our convictions, what is the real trouble about putting our ideas into effect? To me the real trouble is the fact that our educational system is administered by officials, both of the local authority and more especially of the Ministry of Education, who have a purely academic background, who are academic enthusiasts, knowing little or nothing about the technical side of education, who belittle it and give it a poor priority compared with academic education. They will never, in my opinion, give sufficient sympathy to the point of view so well expressed in this Debate.
My solution of the problem—it may be a wrong one, and I do not put it forward in any sense provocative to hon. Members opposite whose views on this matter as expressed today I much respect—my solution of the problem is to take technical education away from academic administration and make it, as far as possible, the subject of an ad hoc administration of men and women, including a large number of trade unionists and industrialists and thoroughly vocationally trained men, who will administer the technical side of the education of our youth in a far better way than those who have a purely academic mind and a purely academic or bureaucratic approach to this subject. I do not think we shall get real satisfaction until some body of that kind is constituted. I realise that there are prejudice and all other kinds of difficulties to contend with, which I need not

enumerate, as hon. Members can readily guess them for themselves. Cannot we begin in a small way by having ad hoc advisory bodies in our local administration and in our central administration, who can build up the confidence of the country in their advice—a confidence based upon their personalities and activities, making their advice and recommendations available to the public, so that the country may know what their recommendations or criticisms are? I would prefer this ad hoc body to have executive powers, but I realise the difficulties and that we must keep our feet on the ground. We cannot move too fast in these days when bureaucracy is so powerful.
I believe that it would be possible to build up confidence in the country in these technical advisory councils or something of that kind which would ultimately lead to the growth of ad hoc bodies of a similar character with definite executive powers. So far as local administration is concerned, I am convinced that it would be better to give considerably greater power to ad hoc bodies, upon which all the requisite types of people who really understand these things would be represented. Local authorities are overburdened with innumerable activities. They do their best, and I pay the highest tribute to the splendid services which they have rendered in so many directions in public life. But many of them are unqualified to administer, and are not in the least interested in technical education. They are wedded to a few preconceived principles with regard to academic education and they regard technical education as the Cinderella, or poor relation.
It is no use expressing ideals with which we all agree, unless we face the difficulties of putting those ideals into practice. We must be practical. We shall never do this merely by making speeches. We can do it only by setting up a body which will gain the confidence of the country, stop this Cinderella business, and develop priority of opportunity for many hundreds and thousands of people in this country for a sound technical education.

2.54 p.m.

Mr. Walkden: It has occurred to me that during the past two hours we have travelled a long way from the subject as it was introduced by the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells).


His speech was an excellent one. He kept to his case and handled his brief very skilfully. He was concerned with advancing the argument that more opportunities and facilities for technical education are needed. Since his speech, we have travelled all round the public schools, the universities and other academic fields. In fact, we have been almost within the realms of that famous school mentioned on the wireless, "St. Michael's." Heaven knows where we should finish, if this discussion went on for another couple of hours.
I noticed that few hon. Members recognised that, in many parts of Britain, we have had vast experience in the past of technical education, and that there are organisations which could submit an enormous amount of evidence to the Minister of Education. In fact, I would say that in many of the tours we made of industrial areas in Yorkshire during the war we were reminded that whatever we may have thought, during our Debates on the Education Act, of the need for refashioning our education system, there was little wrong with the kind of education which had been given for the last 20 years to the lasses and lads, and to the young men and women who coming from different walks of life and different vocations had adapted themselves to all those jobs which had to be done in the factories for our war effort. Might I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) that if he looks into this question of the technical institute he may find there are many parts of the country where there is not a technical school at all and where they have never bothered about one while there are other parts of the country which have gone, not years, but centuries ahead of the others.
I heard the argument of the hon. Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) on what he meant by technical education. He repudiates the idea that we should take the young miners and make them better miners or better engineers if you like, or better grocers or better hairdressers. What does a technical education mean? It means a greater knowledge of the particular technique, a greater grip of the particular subject a person wants to understand. I would remind the Minister of the mining college we have in my part

of the country, which fits in with the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew. We have had half a century of that technical institute. We do not call it a school, we call it a college, and so give it greater dignity. We have turned out tens of thousands of miners, some with first-class certificates, some with second and third-class certificates, and others with mine engineering certificates. In fact, we have turned them out almost like sausages out of a sausage machine.

Mr. Benn Levy: Does the hon. Member think that is the purpose of education?

Mr. Walkden: I am not arguing on the purpose of education, but I am debating the original argument advanced by the hon. Member for Walsall, who spoke of the need for technical education. I look at the position in London, in Lancashire, and in Yorkshire. I have resided in London for nearly 20 years. I understand Lancashire, where I was born, and I am associated with Yorkshire, part of which I represent. As to the situation in London, there are tradesmen doing all kinds of vocations and there are technical schools for them. There is even a school for hairdressers. I remember in 1934 with one or two friends, including employers of labour, going to the London County Council as the first deputation to the education committee to interview them on this question of technical education. We had good fortune, we were well rewarded. We managed to secure, as the result of our representations, a change from the old school in Horseferry Road, to the new technical institute for distributive trades in Charing Cross Road. We are proud of it, and we realise the hard work that was put in to obtain that school. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy), may say that it will only produce better grocers, better distributors or, if you like, better undertakers. But the point is that we who represent organised labour in London felt it was necessary, that we should have technical schools of this kind, just as we have mining institutes in Blackburn or textile institutes in Sheffield. We felt that London, the great centre of distribution, a great metropolis with over one and a half million workers of this class, should have some respectable and decent way of giving education to the distributive workers.

Mr. Levy: As far as the hon. Gentleman is addressing himself to me, I have no objection to these things provided they are recognised as having the objective which the hon. Member has described, and are not confused with education, and advocated as an alternative to education, which they are not.

Mr. Walkden: I am certainly not disposed to offer these as an alternative. What I am asking is that particular trades and particular industries should weld themselves together in this great educational scheme as the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew suggests. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Marshall) and I reside in the same town, but we have not got much of a technical education system in it. Although he is vice-chairman of the county education committee, we have a long way to go, because in our town technical education does not mean very much. However, we shall remedy that soon.

Mr. Sidney Marshall: The hon. Member is wrong in his description of technical education in our county which is, on the whole, one of the best provided counties.

Mr. Walkden: One day I hope to prevail on the hon. Member to go on a tour through Lancashire and Yorkshire and then he will find that Surrey is a long way behind in this respect although well ahead in other aspects of education. I would like to say on my main argument, that when hon. Members on the Opposition Benches lecture us on what we ought to do, they ought to address their remarks to their fellow workers, those people who work behind the scenes, on the matter of taking advantages of the education in technical schools which we have provided for nothing. They do not recognise that this is the way to make better miners, and better textile workers, and so help the wellbeing of industry. We think that is something for the wellbeing of industry, but we do not think it right that employers should exploit those advantages which are provided out of public funds. We think there should be a better understanding and that they should recognise that craftsmen can be trained in this manner. If there are not the technical schools, in many cases this education can probably be taken to the workshops, as is done in London in the distributive trades. Instructors go into many of the

workrooms and warehouses in London, and we get mighty good results. We also weld our scheme with the City and Guilds of London Institute, and it so fits in, that London and Lancashire march together with similar ideas. As I go round the country, I feel that it would be a good thing in our mining and fishing villages also, but if it is to be developed we need more than merely technical schools; we need technical schools with more efficient and up to date equipment.
In the fishing village of Brixham I was reminded that during the war there had been a Belgian technical school for the young fishermen exiled from Belgium during the war. It moved out a few weeks ago. Now that technical school has gone back to Belgium, and there is no technical school for the young fishermen of Brixham. That is a sad thing. It is along those lines I should like to work. I should like to see employers recognise that the assets of any trade are the number of fine young men and women who are trained in the particular vocation, craft or calling which fits into any particular industry. Employers must not go on criticising and "cribbing" at an extra halfpenny or penny rate; they must recognise that their shareholders are benefiting, out of public funds, from the training we are giving to young technicians.
I make an appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary that in putting out his scheme, whatever may be the consequences of today's Debate, he should tell employers, frankly and truthfully, that they have a part to play as well. Let us have a code of behaviour, and a contribution from them. If that is done, I believe we shall be able to make up a lot of leeway, and that Surrey will be able to play a part in catching up with London and other areas, which have not yet started on technical education. They will recognise the urgent need of advancing the cause of the technical education which is very necessary for the wellbeing of Britain.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are only two ad hoc buildings for technical education for the whole of the enormous area of London?

Mr. Walkden: I do not sit on any L.C.C. committees now, but I know that London has technical and trade schools, and other schools which are not called "technical" but are given a better name. There are a catering school in St. Vincent's Square, a trade school in


the Charing Cross Road, one at Bloomsbury, and there are others in addition to 14 Polytechnic schools.

3.8 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: I feel I should be neglecting my duty if I did not direct the Minister's attention to an aspect of this matter which has been neglected during the whole of this discussion, namely, technical education for the handicapped child. I have spent many years of my professional life working among the blind, the deaf, the partially blind and the partially sighted, and I want the Minister to understand that there is scope in the field of technical education to integrate young people suffering from these handicaps into our technical system. We know of the efforts made by blind, deaf and epileptic people during the war in the manufacture of munitions, which helped this country so much. A great deal of the technical training of these people has hitherto been carried on by voluntary societies, which were founded years ago.
If handicapped children are to play their part, and not to be exploited and finish in dead-end jobs in which there is no advancement, they must come into the main body of the educational system which has a vital effect on the development of our economic life. A special advisory committee for this class of people has been set up, and I suggest that that committee might properly explore the possibility of research work in technical processes as they can be carried out by adolescents suffering from these disabilities. In particular, I wish to appeal for those who are neither wholly blind nor wholly deaf, but who are borderline cases. They are apt to fall between two stools. They are unable to take part in the full, normal curriculum of a technical school, and they are debarred from entering the highly specialised training for the blind and deaf. There is, therefore, special need for them to be considered and to be given every opportunity to develop their gifts. It has been proved in recent years that the loss of one faculty is not a vital handicap to the progress of a child. Mental processes are unimpaired, the child desires to get on and the will is there. I hope that every consideration will be given to integrating such children into our technical educational system.

3.12 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: I came to this Debate to learn and to listen—and I have done both—but the speech which has been made by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) prompts me to say a few words. I see that he has gone, like a St. Leger winner, before I can ask him any questions. I heard him sneer at employers who, he said, do not support technical education. Perhaps unfortunately, I received a classical education, because all I learned was how Caesar went in and out of his winter quarters. But, after that, I served my time as an engineer, because the grateful ratepayers of the City of Belfast provided, even in those days, an excellent technical school for teaching boys who were serving their time as engineers. All we paid was about is for six months' evening education. Today, there are cheap sneers at people who go to such schools in order that they will be able to earn an honest living. For my part, I think that is praiseworthy. I paid great attention to my lessons and learned about higher mathematics, steam and applied mechanics. I was interested in those subjects. I knew that it was my profession and that I would be able to earn an honest living afterwards.

Mr. Cobb: Mr. Cobb (Elland) rose—

Sir W. Smiles: No, the hon. Member for Doncaster did not give way to me, and I cannot give way now. To learn for learning's sake is all right, but the first thing one should do is to learn not to be a burden on the community. There are many employers nowadays who allow their apprentices time off on full pay—and I can give the hon. Member for Doncaster their names—and encourage them to go to the technical schools and give them scholarships if they do well there. I think that the employers of this country as well as the employees have all done their duty to give us that state of technical efficiency which has to a very great extent helped us to win the war.

3.15 p.m.

Captain Baird: After listening to the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden), I am rather reluctant to take part in the Debate because I am not sure whether what I have to say is altogether relevant. The Debate has been a general


one about technical education, and I desire to discuss for a few minutes one narrow and special branch of technical education, that is dental education. The only reason I introduce this subject is because in the National Health Service Bill which was introduced yesterday the Minister tells us he is setting up a comprehensive dental service, but that it will not be possible to implement that service, because of the shortage of dental surgeons in the country at the present time. I enter the Debate this afternoon to ask the Minister if he will use every opportunity to let scholars in our schools know of the great opportunities for a career offered at the present time by the dental profession. Dentistry is a technical as well as a professional job; the two things run side by side.
The problem before us is this. Before the war we had, I think, an ample number of dentists for the very restricted circle which could afford to buy dental treatment. But during the war, especially as the result of the very fine work of dentists in the righting Services, a large element of the population has come to realise the value of dental treatment. Men and women coming out of the Forces now, have learned its value and will continue to have treatment if their financial circumstances permit. Under the new National Health Service Bill, dentistry will be free to everyone, and we shall need more dentists in the future than we have had in the past. At the same time, the public as a whole, especially parents when thinking of careers for their sons, have a very queer idea of the opportunities which lie before them in the dental profession. It is only 24 years since this job became restricted and the old idea that dentistry is a kind of quackery, still exists in many minds. I know that on more than one occasion during my career in the Army soldiers came and sat in the dental chair in fear and trembling and said, "Who gave you this job, mate?" or, "How did you get this job? "having the idea that dentists could be trained in a week or two, and so on.
The Minister of Education can help us as far as dentistry and medicine are concerned by taking every opportunity of pointing out the very secure job which is open to a child who enters the dental profession. I draw the Minister's attention to the report of the committee on

dentistry published quite recently which, after commenting on the shortage of dentists, goes on to say:
 No suitable boy or girl wishing to be a dentist should be deterred by lack of means from receiving the necessary training. It is hoped that local authority grants and private benefactions will be increased. State grants should be made available to assist the students to whatever extent may be necessary.
I offer these few remarks, without apology, to the House because I am sure we all realise that to implement the National Health Service Bill we shall need to have more dentists, and I appeal to the Minister to take into consideration what I have said.

3.19 p.m.

Miss Herbison: There are a few points which may have been raised already but which I feel should be stressed. When I studied the Education Act of 1944, I did so very thoroughly because although at one time we in Scotland felt that we led in education, we have found latterly that whatever England and Wales gets in education we must act to follow suit. There was one part of that Act with which I was very much distressed, namely, that which provided that there should be three types of school after the age of 11 plus—a grammar school, a technical school and a modern school. It seems to me to be absolute nonsense that children at the age of 11 plus should be divided and segregated in this way. I feel that in view of this Act giving three types of school we are completely in support of vocational training before the age of 15, and again I object to that very much. How can any child know where his interest lies, or the parent either, from the type of elementary education which is given today? How, indeed, can any teacher know?
The only solution is to have a common school until the recognised leaving age, 15, which is still much too young. I did a great measure of teaching in a common school in Glasgow which has produced some of the most world famous engineers. That school was in every sense a school with no vocational bias. Boys found their interest there and were ready to choose which of the many university courses or technical courses they wished to follow. That seems to me to be the only way possible to give children a chance such as they have not had for a very long time. I cannot sufficiently stress to the Parliamentary


Secretary the importance of seeing that this point is brought to the notice of the Minister and that, instead of those provisions of the 1944 Education Act she should use whatever influence she has to bring about in every district the creation of a common school.
I was very worried by a suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd), who wanted an ad hoc administration to be set up for technical education. I thought that was a very bad suggestion indeed. Even when children have reached the age of 15 and have to leave school, time spent in junior or county colleges should not be given to technical training, but to the development of quite separate interests. That is the only way of giving every boy and girl in Great Britain the wider cultural education which means so much. Some people sneer at the idea of culture. We should not regard the function of the schools as to turn every boy of 15 into a little plumber or a little joiner or a little anything else. I hope that in a very short time we shall be turning out boys and girls who have at least found out where their interest lies, and who will, in the long run, be able to develop every one of their faculties to the full.
If we want the best technicians we shall not get them by segregation at the age of 11-plus. Naturally, the best brains go into the grammar school and the next best into the technical school. We get the rag-tag in the modern school. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make a note of the points I have raised and particularly that he should not allow education to be a vocational training for particular trades.

3.24 p.m.

Mr. Cove: I join with my hon. Friend in saying that while we appreciate the need for technical education, over-emphasis upon it is very detrimental to children in schools, and indeed to the national needs that lie immediately before us. I am not however going into the theory of education, but I want to put one specific point to the Parliamentary Secretary. Can he announce, or will the Minister announce, in the near future, the withdrawal of pamphlet No. 1—" The Nation's Schools "? That is practical politics. Pamphlet No. 1 is still, as I understand it, the policy of the Ministry

of Education. That pamphlet lays down how the Ministry of Education is to interpret and apply the Act of 1944, and I challenge anyone in this House to deny the fact that pamphlet No. 1, embodying as it does the outlook and policy of the Ministry of Education, is a profoundly reactionary document. There, we have the three tiers, the stratification, of our children laid down as the official policy of the Ministry. I was reading Professor Dewey the other day and he referred to the fact that Plato divided men into three compartments—the statesmen and philosophers, who were to have a special kind of education; the men of courage, who had to be soldiers and defenders of the State; and then the vast mass, whom he described as men with appetites. That is exactly the policy laid down in pamphlet No. 1.

Major Lloyd: Major Lloyd rose—

Mr. Cove: Yes, it is there. What does it mean? I do not want to go into the theory, but I want to get rid of pamphlet No. 1. I want the Minister of Education to take it and burn it, and start afresh. What does it say? There must be grammar schools, technical schools, and, for the vast mass of children, the modern school, which is not a secondary school at all. It is still, I understand, the view of the Ministry that there are already too many grammar school places in this country. The Ministry says that this vast mass of children, who have not now the opportunity of grammar school education, are not to get it in the future. It is to be restricted, and there is to be a relatively freer supply of technical education, while the vast mass of the children are to remain in what are called modern secondary schools. The pamphlet says—I am speaking from memory—that the vast mass of the children have not the innate capacity to benefit from the development of their talents. Is that the outlook of a Socialist Ministry? Should that be the outlook of a Socialist Minister, attempting to approach the educational problems of the future? I have been associated for years with the national committee dealing with a policy of education for the Labour Party, along with Professor Tawney and others. For years, we have laid it down that there should be secondary education for all, but pamphlet No. 1 does not embody any such policy at all. It is class-ridden, and it reflects in the educational system, a class outlook


throughout society, and I say, therefore, that a Socialist Minister should get rid of it.

Major Lloyd: I did not want to stop the hon. Gentleman giving his own Minister a good dressing-down. What I did want to do, was to interrupt him on an expression that I just could not swallow. The hon. Gentleman talked about, and deplored, the "over-emphasis" of technical education, but I thought that the whole object of this Debate, and of the originator of it, was to suggest that there was an under-emphasis.

Mr. Cove: I disagree. As a matter of fact, our educational system has been thwarted and twisted and misdirected by the ephemeral needs of war purposes. There arose in the war a great need for technical ability, technical capacity. One of the criticisms is that there has been, and still is, an over-emphasis, even on the need for what is called technical education. As a matter of fact, if the hon. and gallant Member will look a little closer into it, he will find that it is not the extended technical education which he thinks it is; it is truncated technical education, which is merely fitting boys and girls to do the menial semi-skilled jobs in garages, as it were, up and down the country. The ordinary technical schools, as outlined in pamphlet No. 1, do not provide an outlet to the higher ranges at all. They do not provide access to the universities. I am convinced that one of the great dangers in our educational system at this moment is that we shall neglect what we broadly call the arts, in other words what is called a liberal education, and predestine a mass of children to menial jobs. I say that that is not the outlook with which a Socialist Minister should approach the problem of education.
I do not intend to go into any further detail, but it is clear from other circulars, which I could mention, that this outlook is deeply embedded in the Ministry of Education. There are other circulars which restrict the legitimate opportunities for the ordinary child. Therefore, I hope, that the Minister of Education will review the whole policy. Spurious educational arguments can be used for some of the circulars which have been issued, but there can be no justification for a number of them, from the point of view of a social approach, and a Socialist Minister

should look not merely at the field of education through the narrow eyes of education, but should relate the means and purpose and the organisation of our schools to the social objects in view. I hope that the main social object in view is equality of educational opportunity for the ordinary mass of the common children throughout the length and breadth of the country.

3. 33 p.m.

Mr. Mikardo: I should not have intervened but for some remarks which fell from the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd). I hate to make a point of disagreement with his speech, which was so cordial and charming and so constructive. But I wish to suggest to him, and I think he will be receptive to the suggestion, that there are good reasons against his idea that we should have some separation of technical education from the remainder of the educational scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison) has offered one ground of objection to that proposal. I want to put another. It is a point frequently overlooked by educationists, that the mass of technical education in this country is not done in educational establishments, but on factory floors. In spite of the existence of technical schools, trade schools, polytechnics, mining schools, textile schools and the rest, these, in toto, account only for a minor portion of the technical teaching in the country. The major portion is carried out on factory shop floors, by methods which are sometimes extremely antiquated and sometimes totally unsuitable for the purposes which they set out to achieve. Unlike the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew, I would plead for a closer integration of this type of technical education—so called—with the general education scheme. In fact, I should like to see some sort of supervision of this unofficial education carried out in individual factories and some sort of laying down of standards for such education by the Minister of Education—

Major Lloyd: My hon. Friend has made an important point. I would agree that closer integration is the ideal, but my argument was that it is very difficult to get closer integration, when the overwhelming predominance of the administration has a definite academic bias.

Mr. Mikardo: My answer to that is that whereas the hon. and gallant Gentleman may be right—I do not know—in saying there is an academic bias in administration, there is, definitely, an anti-academic bias, among the people who do the technical teaching on the shop floor. Until we resolve this war between two different types of ideas, we are making the poor little lad who is being taught, a mere shuttlecock between those two different sets of ideas. What is happening is that we are gradually moving into a system in which for a period of several years in the life of every boy and girl, he or she will be partly at school, and partly at work. If he is told at work, and he so often is, that everything that he learns at school is theoretical and "sissy "—that is the usual adjective—and he is told, at school, that everything he learns at work is antiquated and of no value, what is the poor lad to think? It completely negatives all the value of education. I wish many more educationists would get around amongst the factories, particularly engineering factories, and see the type of teaching which is given to 14 year old new entrants into industry.
What actually happens? You get this poor little lad who comes into a great factory for the first time. He comes from a place in which he was the "king pin ";he was the senior boy of the school, he had a row of scout badges down his arm, and everybody looked up to him. He comes into a place in which he is a negligible little cog. His first reaction is that he is frightened. I have watched them very often. They are frightened by the unfamiliarity of everything, by the noise, and they think they will never remember on which side to hold their" clock card" or where they should park their bicycle. They come in a state of absolute terror. They go through the labour office, are taken to the foreman, and the foreman takes them to the operator and says to them, "Look, this is Bill. He is a skilled man at his job. Stand and watch him, and in time you will learn what he is doing." Bill is chosen to teach this lad, not because he is the best teacher in the shop, but because, he is the best fitter. Everybody knows that the best fitter is not necessarily the best teacher of engineering, just as the best historian is not necessarily the best teacher of history. This teaching is done, for the most part,

by people who are chosen, not for any aptitude in teaching at all, but for aptitude in some other type of skill. More-over, though he may be the best fitter in the shop, he can still be using the wrong methods. Very often he is getting excellent results by using inherent ability, manual dexterity, individual accuracy, and so on. The result is that we have a system liable to error in this technical education in the factory. Little Tom comes in, and learns from Bill, in exactly the same way that 15 years before Bill learned from Arthur, and Arthur learned from Jim, and Jim never knew in the first place. This is carried on from generation to generation.
Of course, there are exceptions to this. There are many enlightened firms which have schools for teaching new entrants where they have special apprenticeship schemes, although very often the first two years of the apprenticeship are totally wasted in making tea for the other men, or taking cakes around. But even these enlightened firms are the exception, and in the great majority of cases the teaching is done by the skilled operator on the bench who has no incentive to do the job properly. In fact, this lad who hangs around him is getting in his way. He is working on a bonus, and every time he stops to tell the lad something he loses money. Unless some minimum standard is laid down for employing competent people to teach, which can only be done under the aegis of the Minister of Education, we shall be concentrating on the minor part of technical education and leaving fallow a much larger and potentially more fruitful field.
When we have this "push and pull" set up in a boy's mind—when his teacher at evening classes, or in the two half days a week of continuation day school, tells him certain things about the broader techniques of the industry, and then he goes back into the factory and "old Bill" says, "Never mind about all that algebra stuff, all that is theoretical; this is where you will learn "—educationists are often surprised to find that the lad, instead of listening to the teacher, listens to the man on the bench. That is not surprising, because the teacher represents to the boy a continuation of the state of childhood and dependence, whereas the skilled man on the bench represents everything this lad wants to be. He is a wonderful fellow, and understands every-


thing. He can do wonderful things with tools. He can even, despite the safety notices, clean the machinery when it is in motion—and does. And so he becomes a hero to the boy, and the boy listens to every word this man says. If the man denigrates what the lad is taught in school, that denigration is effective, and whatever he has learned at school is wasted. Therefore I maintain that we need a closer tying down of the efforts of the Ministry with all the unofficial technical education that goes on, in order that we shall not have invalidated many of the improvements which are being set up in our official technical education institutions.

3.42 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): I cannot help striking a personal note to begin with, particularly in view of the speech of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo). I can vouch that I have experienced the sort of thing to which he referred when he spoke about the boy in the workshop paying more attention to the foreman My foreman in the wagon shop, in the local fitting shop, or in the railway yard has been, in many instances, more of a teacher to me than any teacher or lecturer I have heard later in life in an ancient institution like Cambridge University. Then, again, I want to strike a personal note, in that I have had in my family a long personal connection with technical education, and, although my father did attempt to teach me some of the mysteries of technical education, I am afraid I have to admit also that he failed dismally.
I feel that many of the brickbats which have been hurled at the Ministry this afternoon are brickbats which I can personally feel, having the academic and the workshop backgrounds, and also, in some respects, being now, I suppose, an administrator. I am, however, extremely gratified that this Debate has arisen, largely because we cannot exaggerate the importance of technical education and its status in England during the next 50 years. Many ideas about education in general have been expressed this afternoon. I am afraid that from time to time in my reply I shall disagree profoundly with some of the views expressed, but I hope it will be admitted by both sides of the House when I have finished,

that another philosophical view as regards the status of different kinds of education, different from the somewhat metaphysical view put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Benn Levy), has been expressed this afternoon.
For too long—and we all start with this—we have neglected technological training in England, not only in the late start we gave to first class junior or technical schools—even though they were instigated in the first instance in 1905—but specially in the realm of higher technological research. It is high time that something was done about it. Therefore, when hon. Members on both sides of the House press the Ministry to do everything in its power to raise the status and improve technological education in England they have the sympathy of the right hon. Lady and every person—bureaucrat or not—at 14, Belgrave Square.
It will be remembered that the Percy Committee was appointed in April 1944, to consider the needs of higher technological education in England and Wales. The Act of 1944 had provided the framework, and it was the duty of the Committee to show how the development of that education could be systematically planned. As hon. Members have pointed out we have wanted systematic planning for a very long time, and we need it more than ever if, in the world of tomorrow, we are to remain the great and influential Power in world economy that we have been in the past. In planning technological development the Committee had to study the best way of linking up technical education with industry and with the universities, so that out of the Percy Report we are to have a tripartite Committee, as it were, working nationally and locally to improve technological training. I would like to interpolate a point here about the contribution which industry has made in certain areas of this country to the equipment of technical colleges The other day I had the great pleasure of going round the Derby Technical College, and there is no doubt that there we have a first class example of great industrial firms, like Rolls Royce and the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, being intensely interested in what was going on in the College and providing the students and staff with first rate equipment for teaching the highest processes


of technical training. That is not the only example one can give. Local industries, whatever their faults may have been in the past, are at present doing their best to play their part in helping technical training.
The Percy Committee was a strong committee and, reading its Report, we must agree that it has made some very worthwhile recommendations. But we have to ask ourselves—and the opener of this Debate on the Adjournment can rightly ask—how far have we gone in following any of the recommendations made by the Percy Committee? This Report was made public less than six months ago, but hon. Members have a right to ask the Ministry what steps have been taken so far. That is the first salient question that I have to answer this afternoon. Among the recommendations of the Percy Committee, as has been pointed out by various speakers, are two concerned with the regional organisation of further education—the establishment of regional councils for further education and the establishment of regional academic boards for higher technology.
We sent out a circular, No. 87, on 20th February, 1946, which represents the first move towards the establishment of this national system of regional organisation, and as soon as these regional councils are set up—and I myself had the honour of making it known publicly to a body of technical principals and experts that we were to have these bodies set up as quickly as possible—we shall establish the national Council for Technology, for co-ordinating the work of the regions and ensuring that a comprehensive national view is taken and provision made. The chief functions of these bodies will be to link up local education authorities with the universities and, equally important, to link up education with industry. In this way, we shall ensure developments to meet the needs of industrial personnel.
A third important recommendation of the Report is the desirability of improving the status of major technical colleges. Again, a circular has been prepared—we seem to spend a great deal of time preparing circulars—which proposes to encourage local education authorities to establish strong governing bodies representative of industry and of the authorities, and the Minister is proposing to ask local education authorities to give considerable executive

freedom to those governing bodies. In this circular, which is now being prepared, appears the first reference to national colleges, another recommendation of the Percy Committee. At the present time, discussions are taking place with the various industries for the establishment of such national colleges, and one has recently been established for watch and clock making.
A fourth recommendation which again I think is highly important concerns the desirability of encouraging research. We are trying to implement this by sending out another circular, which has already been discussed with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and with the Federation of British Industries. The ideal which is shared by all hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate is to see, as quickly as possible, a considerable extension of research work in technical colleges, particularly research work which will be directed towards, and will help, local industries. The question was raised by the hon. Member who initiated the Debate of the award of a degree or diploma. This question as to what award should be granted raised considerable controversy in the Percy Committee itself. We want the decision as to what the award shall be to be determined by the National Council when it is formed, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) raised this question and enabled me to make it known that we hope and expect that the National Council itself will settle the kind of award, whether it is to be a diploma or a degree.
I turn now to another important question raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, about the figures of those who are at present engaged in technical training of any kind. I hope hon. Members will understand that I am paying particular attention to the main points raised by the hon. Member who initiated this Debate, and I think it is important that I should give the figures he asks for. I am afraid, however, that they are not very complete. As every hon. Member knows the Statistical Departments of Ministries have had other work to do during the war, and so the first set of figures I can give relate to 1937. The number of pupils in junior technical schools in 1937 was about 6 per cent. Of those in secondary grammar schools—only 6 per cent. Of the pupils leaving public elementary schools in that


year 14.5 per cent. entered secondary grammar schools and only 3.2 per cent. entered junior technical and similar schools. We know that by Section 8 of the Act of 1944, secondary education of the technical type takes its place side by side with secondary grammar and secondary modern school education in the national system.
In circular 73, we suggest that, under normal conditions, 70 to 75 per cent. of the accommodation should be of the secondary modern school type and 25 to 30 per cent. of the grammar and technical school types according to local circumstances. Personally I do not accept those figures. I do not think that they represent a satisfactory goal at all, because I think that we shall require a higher percentage of technical skill—perhaps a percentage as high as 30 per cent. May I say something about this question of technical skill from the point of view of the educationist, who may have perhaps a different view of it from the views expressed this afternoon? There is in the life of every individual that youthful age which Whitehead calls "The Age of Romance." To 10 or 11 plus the child must learn by every possible way—amusements, pleasures and by the use of every vivid method of training one can obtain There does come, I suggest, in the life of every child at about 11 or 12 years of age a desire for specialisation, precision and achievement. It is that period from 11 to 15, 16 or 17, which we call the period of secondary education, and in the secondary education we have to give to the child during that period there must be something which gives it a sense of achievement, something that it has mastered and something that it has done to its conclusion.
The question of what is a liberal education or a vocational education does not enter into my philosophy. It has been a fundamental mistake of our educational system that we have allowed this cleavage to develop at all. It seems that we shall never get the right outlook on what is called the modern secondary school and the technical secondary school as types distinct from selected grammar school education, until we get out of our minds the suggestion that because one is doing something useful, one is doing something meaner than someone who has had a so-called Platonic, liberal education.
I feel that the problem raised so often this afternoon about technical education ought to be extended to what, up till now, are the three types of secondary education suggested in the pamphlet referred to by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) not so long ago. If we accepted the assumption in this circular that the provision of technical education accommodation for the country is to be about 10 per cent. of the normal age group, we should have to find places for 53,000 pupils and for five years for some 265,000 pupils, approximately eight times the present provision. In my opinion that is not enough. I think that there will come a time when we shall have to develop our technical colleges and institutions to such an extent that we are prepared to provide for a much bigger percentage of the school population. We know particularly during the last 18 months, indeed during the war, that the demand for technological training and technical education has increased out of all knowledge. I cannot give the overall figure this afternoon. As an indication of the kind of increase that has already taken place, I would like to refer to the training courses for those entering the building industry.

It being Four o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Michael Stewart.]

Mr. Hardman: The training courses for those entering the building industry provide some illuminating figures of the demand for technical training that we have had in the last 18 months. Before the war there were some 500 pupils in the aggregate for this specialised training; now we have 11,000, in the so-called secondary technical school, being trained at the present time. I would suggest to hon. Members opposite that this does show in good earnest the Government's interest in the problem of building houses and building new schools.
The hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) referred quite rightly to the position of women in technical education. Personally I agree with her that there is no question of discrimination at all. We are out to meet demands for technical education whether from men or women. We have not up to now, and do not intend to permit, any discrimination at all. We


have women holders of national certificates both in engineering and in building. It is true, as the hon. Lady suggested, that there are special facilities for women in technical colleges on subjects in connection with housewifery. I agree with her that it is not enough. There are, of course, opportunities for commercial training and there women are on an equality with men. What we envisage in the Ministry is improved facilities for women in the catering industry for instance, and a large increase in training for women for institutional management, for example, school and hospital matrons, canteen supervisors, head manageresses and those particular specialised jobs which I suggest women can do much better than men. These are some of the callings in which we expect women to play a large part, and for them technical courses are provided in technical institutes.
The hon. Lady also raised the question of agricultural education. She rightly pointed out that the whole subject was investigated by a Joint Committee of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Education under the Chairmanship of the Vice-Chancellor of Bristol University. The hon. Lady has read that pamphlet, and she knows that the highest type of agricultural training is, in fact, under the control of the Ministry of Agriculture. When it comes to farm institutes and other forms of agricultural training we wish to co-operate, and do, in fact, co-operate with the Ministry of Agriculture.

Mrs. Manning: May I interrupt to say I only raised that point in order that it might be made crystal clear, because when I asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture over a fortnight ago he placed all the responsibility on the shoulders of the Minister of Education. Therefore, I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has made this point absolutely clear.

Mr. Hardman: It is true that we are not advocating a vocational course in secondary education, but we are suggesting a bias in an education which is secondary in character. In village colleges in Cambridgeshire three out of four have an agricultural bias. Personally, I believe in biases in education. We want to keep our children on the land, and interested in village life, so, naturally, there is a bias in their education towards agricultural interests. When in Denbighshire

I saw at Llysfasi—and this illustrates what an advanced education authority can do—a magnificent example of a residential secondary school experiment, where the boys in residence at what we now call a secondary school are learning all about the life and care of animals and about crops. In fact, the agricultural bias there is very strong indeed. But there is also an emphasis on the cultural things of life. I want to ask enthusiasts for education not to talk too generally about so-called "riff-raff" going to what have been called modern schools—

Mr. Cove: We have been saying the opposite. We do not say that "riff-raff" goes to modern secondary schools; we say that the ordinary, normal child, going to a modern secondary school, should have the same opportunities as it would have at a grammar school.

Mr. Hardman: I do not take that view at all. My view is that we should have three types of education, of equal status.

Mr. Levy: You choose from them, who shall go into which?

Mr. Hardman: What we intend to do with these three groups is to see that every child has the equality of opportunity it ought to have to develop educationally the whole world of art, culture, music, painting and architecture. If young people are taught in school to appreciate these glorious discoveries in the arts, as well as how to do a technical job, they will use their leisure much better as they grow older. In consequence, they will certainly be better citizens and better breadwinners.
It was unfortunate that so many references were made today about the position of the universities, unfortunate because my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Durbin) ought to have appreciated that the universities are more under the control of the Treasury than under the control of the Ministry of Education. We have no control of the universities at all. If is possible that some may hold very strong views about the part universities are playing in the social development of our country, and those views can be expressed. Even the universities tend to be closed corporations—

Mr. Blackburn: Cambridge.

Mr. Hardman: Cambridge may be a good instance, but it is not the only one. It is not the prerogative of my right hon.


Friend the Minister or myself to tell the universities what they must do. We can advise them, and I know that my right hon. Friend lakes the opportunity to do that, especially when she visits the sister university at Oxford.

Mr. Durbin: I merely suggested that the views of the Ministry as to the needs of the country should be put to the universities with all the authority of the Government. I asked whether such communication had been made, and if the views of the Ministry had been placed in a praiseworthy form before the university authorities?

Mr. Hardman: The best thing I can do is to draft another circular, and this time send it to the University of Oxford instead of to the local authorities. Our view of technical education in the past has been a mean one, as I have already said, because our educational system has taught us to think of something useful as being inferior to something liberal. I was sorry to hear expressions which denoted an inferiority complex in those who had had a classical education I had a classical education, and although I am not good at classics I claim that it taught me a considerable amount of good. No knowledge is outmoded It is a question as to how that knowledge is focused on the needs of the present. It is not the classics that are wrong; it is the way the classics have been taught. What we can do, even in classical education—which, I hope, will be open to every child who wants it—is to see how it can be focused upon the life which people experience and live

Mr. Blackburn: Much as I admire my hon. Friend, may I point out that if 90 per cent of education is focused on things which happened 2,000 years ago, then however brilliant one is it is impossible to extract from that knowledge things which are relevant to the economic and social conditions which have put my hon. Friend into the situation he occupies at the moment.

Mr. Hardman: As my hon. Friend is such a devotee of the sciences, I would like to point out that the whole vocabulary of modern science cannot be completely or easily understood without, in the first instance, a fairly concise knowledge of the classics

Mr. Blackburn: No.

Mr. Hardman: Well, an understanding of the great tragedies of Greece, of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, will at least give a person a background to an understanding of what modern science is trying to do about the stubborn irreducible facts of nature. Technical education, as I see it, fulfils a deep desire in alert, growing, people to translate their ideas into skilled manual work. Mere manual work, mere manual skill, must have a source. That source, I think, is vision, and it is the arts that give that vision. So, in technical education we ask not only for the concreteness of technological training, not only the first hand observation of scientific training, but the way of vision supplied by a cultural side to all technical college work. My experience of technical colleges in the last ten years is that they have developed to a remarkably praiseworthy degree, in many fine instances, the whole cultural side of technical college, activity. I insist that there is no question of rivalry in status between the three, four or ten types of education we have to develop. They are all to be of equal status and I am determined if I have any say in the matter, that technical education tomorrow will be given full honours in the temple of education we are trying to build.
Many hon. Members of the House will remember a famous ending to a great play by George Bernard Shaw. "John Bull's Other Island" ends with the words of a mad priest, describing the ideal state of mankind:
 In my dreams it is a country where the State is the Church and the Church the people. Three in one, and one in three. It is a commonwealth in which work is play, and play is life. Three in one, and one in three. It is a temple in which the priest is the worshipper, and the worshipper the worshipped. Three in one and one in three. It is a god-head in which all life is human, and all humanity divine. Three in one, and one in three. It is, in short, the dream of a madman 
The important lines here, as Whitehead so profoundly remarks, are those in which the priest says, "It is a commonwealth in which work is play, and play is life." I suggest that in those words there lies the ideal of technical education.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: Before the hon. Member concludes may I ask him a question about a modern school in Bath? There are a first-class secondary grammar school and a first-class technical school.


The competition for places in the technical school has gone up enormously. I fear, and I think hon. Members opposite fear, that when a modern school is available, only the "riff raff" will wish to apply for admittance—those who are turned down by the other two schools. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has answered that point.

Mr. Hardman: I should not like to answer a question of that kind, without knowing all the facts of the situation. In other words, if the hon. Member will allow me to investigate the matter, I will ascertain the position in his constituency, and write to him on the subject.

Mr. Pitman: It applies everywhere.

Mr. Blackburn: While congratulating my hon. Friend on the penultimate part of his speech and also on its ultimate part, may I ask him to consider putting the purely practical point for an ad hoc organisation—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member is making a second speech, not asking a question.

Mr. Blackburn: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I was asking whether the Under-Secretary would be good enough to put to the appropriate Government Department the point about an organisation with relation to scientific apparatus and certain Government surplus stores.

Mr. Hardman: I am sorry I have missed so many points that have been raised this afternoon, but in reply to the hon. Member I would say that we are, of course, working in co-ordination with Government Departments selling surplus stocks. We have our own departmental representatives on the appropriate Committees, and. at a lower level we are working with the L.E.A.s. Only this week we have been considering the purchasing or otherwise of certain surplus stocks for use in technical education, and. the matter is not being lost sight of.

Question put, and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes past Four o'Clock.